idnits 2.17.1 draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00.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 indicate that this document updates RFC8623, but the header doesn't have an 'Updates:' line to match this. -- The abstract seems to indicate that this document updates RFC8281, 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 (November 26, 2019) is 1613 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 (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Q. Xiong 3 Internet-Draft ZTE Corporation 4 Updates: 8231 (if approved) November 26, 2019 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 29, 2020 8 LSP Object Flag field of Stateful PCE 9 draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-00 11 Abstract 13 RFC8231 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful 14 control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths(LSPs) via PCEP. 15 One of the extensions is the LSP object which includes a Flag field 16 and the length is 12 bits. However, 11 bits of the Flag field has 17 been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and RFC8623 respectively. 19 This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 20 for LSP object to extend the length of the flag. 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2020. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 3.1. Flag Field in LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 3.2. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 63 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 6.1. LSP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 67 6.2. PCEP-Error Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 69 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 71 1. Introduction 73 [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) 74 which is used between a Path Computation Element (PCE) and a Path 75 Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of 76 Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label 77 Switched Path (TE LSP). 79 PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model [RFC8231] describes a set 80 of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and 81 Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. One of the extensions is the LSP 82 object which includes a Flag field and the length is 12 bits.However, 83 11 bits of the Flag field has been assigned in RFC8231, RFC8281 and 84 RFC8623 respectively. 86 This document updates RFC8231 by defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 87 for LSP object to extend the length of the flag. 89 2. Conventions used in this document 91 2.1. Terminology 93 The terminology is defined as [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. 95 2.2. Requirements Language 97 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 98 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 99 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 100 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 101 capitals, as shown here. 103 3. Update 105 3.1. Flag Field in LSP Object 107 As Figure 1 shows, the LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of 108 [RFC8231]. The LSP object contains a flag field indicating to a PCE 109 that the LSP State Synchronization is in progress. 111 0 1 2 3 112 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 1 113 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 114 | PLSP-ID | Flag | 115 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 116 // TLVs // 117 | | 118 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 120 Figure 1: Flag field in LSP Object 122 As defined in [RFC8231], the length of LSP Object Flag field is 12 123 bits and it defined the value from bit 5 to bit 11. The bits from 1 124 to 3 are assigned in [RFC8623], the bit value 4 is used in [RFC8281]. 125 The details of the flag field and assigned bits are shown as follows. 127 +---------+----------------------+-------------+ 128 | Value | Name | Reference | 129 +---------+----------------------+-------------+ 130 | 1 | ERO-compression | RFC8623 | 131 | 2 | Fragmentation | RFC8623 | 132 | 3 | P2MP | RFC8623 | 133 | 4 | Create | RFC8281 | 134 | 5-7 | Operational (3 bits) | RFC8231 | 135 | 8 | Administrative | RFC8231 | 136 | 9 | Remove | RFC8231 | 137 | 10 | SYNC | RFC8231 | 138 | 11 | Delegate | RFC8231 | 139 +---------+----------------------+-------------+ 141 Table 1 143 3.2. The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 145 All bits of the flag has been assigned except bit 0. This document 146 proposes to define a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for LSP object to 147 extend the length of the flag as the Figure 2 shown. 149 0 1 2 3 150 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 1 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 152 | Type=TBD | Length | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 | Extended Flag | 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 157 Figure 2: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Format 159 Extended Flag (32 bits), starting from the least significant bit. 160 The bit 0 SHOULD be reserved. Other unassigned bits are reserved for 161 future uses. They MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be 162 ignored on receipt. 164 The LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG MUST be included in the LSP object when the bit 165 0 of the Flag field carried in the LSP object set to 1. If the TLV 166 is missing, the PCE will generate an error with Error-type=6 167 (Mandatory Object missing) and error-value TBD (LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV 168 missing) and close the session. 170 4. Security Considerations 172 TBA 174 5. Acknowledgements 176 TBA 178 6. IANA Considerations 180 6.1. LSP Object 182 [RFC8231] defines the LSP object; per that RFC, IANA created a 183 registry to manage the value of the LSP object's Flag field. IANA is 184 requested to make allocations from the registry, as follows: 186 +---------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 187 | Value | Name | Reference | 188 +---------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 189 | 0 | Indicate the LSP Extended Flag | [this document] | 190 | TBD | LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV | [this document] | 191 +---------+---------------------------------+------------------+ 193 Table 2 195 6.2. PCEP-Error Object 197 The following error types and error values have been registered 198 within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of 199 the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry: 201 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 202 | Error-Type | Meaning | 203 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 204 | 6 | Mandatory Object missing | 205 | | Error-value | 206 | | TBD: LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV missing | 207 +--------------+------------------------------------+ 209 Table 3 211 7. Normative References 213 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 214 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 215 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 216 . 218 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 219 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 220 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 221 . 223 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 224 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 225 May 2017, . 227 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 228 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 229 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 230 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 231 . 233 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 234 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 235 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 236 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 237 . 239 [RFC8623] Palle, U., Dhody, D., Tanaka, Y., and V. Beeram, "Stateful 240 Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for 241 Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths 242 (LSPs)", RFC 8623, DOI 10.17487/RFC8623, June 2019, 243 . 245 Author's Address 247 Quan Xiong 248 ZTE Corporation 249 No.6 Huashi Park Rd 250 Wuhan, Hubei 430223 251 China 253 Email: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn