idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04.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 27, 2017) is 2335 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 31, 2018 A. Farrel 7 Juniper Networks 8 November 27, 2017 10 Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element 11 communication Protocol (PCEP) 12 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-04 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 31, 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]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g., 156 [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a 157 Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) Request message). 159 As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would 160 be ignored. 162 6. IANA Considerations 164 IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 165 at . 167 6.1. New PCEP Messages 169 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages 170 (see PCEP Messages at ). 172 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 173 registry to read as follows: 175 0-251 IETF Review 176 252-255 Experimental Use 178 IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry 179 accordingly. 181 6.2. New PCEP Objects 183 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects 184 (see PCEP Objects at ). 186 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 187 registry to read as follows: 189 0-247 IETF Review 190 248-255 Experimental Use 192 IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry 193 accordingly. 195 6.3. New PCEP TLVs 197 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see 198 PCEP TLV Type Indicators at ). 200 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 201 registry to read as follows: 203 0-65503 IETF Review 204 65504-65535 Experimental Use 206 IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry 207 accordingly. 209 7. Security Considerations 211 This document does not introduce any new security considerations to 212 the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the 213 specific security measures. 215 [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points 216 introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations 217 accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse 218 and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, 219 accidentally, from another experiment. 221 8. Acknowledgments 223 The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien 224 Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their 225 feedback and suggestions. 227 We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this 228 document and providing comments with text suggestions. 230 9. References 232 9.1. Normative References 234 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 235 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 236 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 237 . 239 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 240 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 241 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 242 . 244 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 245 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 246 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 247 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 248 . 250 [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] 251 Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "PCEP 252 Extensions for PCE-initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 253 Model", draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-11 (work in 254 progress), October 2017. 256 9.2. Informative References 258 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 259 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, 260 DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, 261 . 263 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 264 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 265 2014, . 267 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 268 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 269 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 270 . 272 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries 274 Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an 275 Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV 276 sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an 277 experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another 278 PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new 279 experimental object or TLV instead. 281 Authors' Addresses 283 Dhruv Dhody 284 Huawei Technologies 285 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 286 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 287 India 289 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 291 Daniel King 292 Lancaster University 293 UK 295 EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk 297 Adrian Farrel 298 Juniper Networks 299 UK 301 EMail: afarrel@juniper.net