rfc9752.original   rfc9752.txt 
PCE Working Group C. Li Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Li
Internet-Draft H. Zheng Request for Comments: 9752 H. Zheng
Updates: 7470 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Updates: 7470 Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Category: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: 29 May 2025 Ciena ISSN: 2070-1721 Ciena
S. Sidor S. Sidor
Z. Ali Z. Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Systems, Inc.
25 November 2024 March 2025
Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element Conveying Vendor-Specific Information in the Path Computation Element
(PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for Stateful PCE. Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-13
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) that enable the inclusion of vendor- Communication Protocol (PCEP) that enable the inclusion of vendor-
specific information in stateful PCE operations. These extensions specific information in stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
allow vendors to incorporate proprietary data within PCEP messages, operations. These extensions allow vendors to incorporate
facilitating enhanced network optimization and functionality in proprietary data within PCEP messages, facilitating enhanced network
environments requiring vendor-specific features. The extensions optimization and functionality in environments requiring vendor-
maintain compatibility with existing PCEP implementations and promote specific features. The extensions maintain compatibility with
interoperability across diverse network deployments. RFC 7470 existing PCEP implementations and promote interoperability across
defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in stateless diverse network deployments. RFC 7470 defines a facility to carry
PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) messages. This document extends vendor-specific information in stateless PCEP messages. This
this capability for the Stateful PCEP messages. document extends this capability for the Stateful PCEP messages.
This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA This document updates RFC 7470 to revise the reference to the IANA
registry for managing Enterprise Numbers. registry for managing Enterprise Numbers.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 May 2025. Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9752.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights publication of this document. Please review these documents
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language
1.2. Use of RBNF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Use of RBNF
2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object . . . . . . . . 4 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object
3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV
4. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Manageability Considerations
4.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. Control of Function and Policy
4.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. Information and Data Models
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
4.4. Verifying Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Verifying Correct Operations
4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
4.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.6. Impact on Network Operations
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. IANA Considerations
6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations
6.1. Cisco Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. References
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.1. Normative References
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7.2. Informative References
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Acknowledgments
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Contributors
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440]
provides mechanisms for a Path Computation Element (PCE) to perform provides mechanisms for a Path Computation Element (PCE) to perform
path computation in response to a Path Computation Client (PCC) path computation in response to a Path Computation Client (PCC)
request. request.
A Stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of the A Stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of path
path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and computation, not only the network state in terms of links and nodes
nodes (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but (referred to as the Traffic Engineering Database or TED) but also the
also the status of active services (previously computed paths, and status of active services (previously computed paths, and currently
currently reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths reserved resources, stored in the Label Switched Paths Database (LSP-
Database (LSP-DB)). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a DB)). [RFC8051] describes general considerations for a Stateful PCE
Stateful PCE deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
as well as its challenges and limitations through a number of use its challenges and limitations through a number of use cases.
cases.
[RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful [RFC8231] describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide stateful
control. A Stateful PCE has access to not only the information control. A Stateful PCE has access to not only the information
carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), but also
the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its the set of active paths and their reserved resources for its
computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute computations. The additional state allows the PCE to compute
constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their constrained paths while considering individual LSPs and their
interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and interactions. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and
teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the Stateful PCE model. These teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the Stateful PCE model. These
extensions add new messages in PCEP for Stateful PCE. extensions add new messages in PCEP for Stateful PCE.
[RFC7470] defines the Vendor Information Object, which can carry [RFC7470] defines the Vendor Information object, which can carry
arbitrary, proprietary information, such as vendor-specific arbitrary, proprietary information, such as vendor-specific
constraints, in stateless PCEP. It also defines the VENDOR- constraints, in stateless PCEP. It also defines the VENDOR-
INFORMATION-TLV, which allows arbitrary information to be embedded INFORMATION-TLV, which allows arbitrary information to be embedded
within any existing or future PCEP object that supports TLVs. within any existing or future PCEP object that supports TLVs.
While originally designed for stateless PCEP, the Vendor Information While originally designed for stateless PCEP, the Vendor Information
Object and VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also useful in the Stateful PCE object and VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV are also useful in the Stateful PCE
model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can be included in any of the model. The VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV can already be included in any of
stateful PCEP objects as per [RFC7470] already. This document the stateful PCEP objects per [RFC7470]. This document further
further extends stateful PCEP messages to support the use of the extends stateful PCEP messages to support the use of the Vendor
Vendor Information Object. Information object.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Use of RBNF 1.2. Use of RBNF
The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing The message formats in this document are illustrated using Routing
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) encoding, as specified in [RFC5511]. The use
of RBNF is illustrative only and may omit certain important details; of RBNF is illustrative only and may omit certain important details;
the normative specification of messages is found in the descriptive the normative specification of messages is found in the descriptive
text. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the text. If there is any divergence between the RBNF and the
descriptive text, the descriptive text is considered authoritative. descriptive text, the descriptive text is considered authoritative.
2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object 2. Procedures for the Vendor Information Object
A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as A Path Computation LSP State Report message (also referred to as
PCRpt message) [RFC8231] (Section 6.1) is a PCEP message sent by a PCRpt message; see Section 6.1 of [RFC8231]) is a PCEP message sent
PCC to a PCE to report the current state of an LSP. A PCC that wants by a PCC to a PCE to report the current state of an LSP. A PCC that
to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information or metrics to a wants to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information or metrics
PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object in the PCRpt to a PCE does so by including a Vendor Information object in the
message. The contents and format of the object, including the PCRpt message. The contents and format of the object, including the
VENDOR-INFORMATION object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, are VENDOR-INFORMATION object and the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, are
described in Section 4 of [RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to described in Section 4 of [RFC7470]. The PCE determines how to
interpret the information in the Vendor Information object by interpret the information in the Vendor Information object by
examining the Enterprise Number it contains. examining the Enterprise Number it contains.
[RFC7470] stated that: [RFC7470] stated that:
"Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an | Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through an
IANA registry [RFC2578]". | IANA registry [RFC2578].
This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with: This document updates [RFC7470] and replaces this text with:
"Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the | Enterprise Numbers are assigned by IANA and managed through the
"Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in | "Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)" registry as described in
[RFC9371]." | [RFC9371].
The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message. The Vendor Information object is OPTIONAL in a PCRpt message.
Multiple instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt Multiple instances of the object MAY be contained in a single PCRpt
message. Different instances of the object MAY have different message. Different instances of the object MAY have different
Enterprise Numbers. Enterprise Numbers.
The format of the PCRpt message (with Section 6.1 of [RFC8231] as the The format of the PCRpt message (with Section 6.1 of [RFC8231] as the
base) is updated as follows: base) is updated as follows:
<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
<state-report-list> <state-report-list>
Where:
Where:
<state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>] <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]
<state-report> ::= [<SRP>] <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
<LSP> <LSP>
<path> <path>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
Where:
Where:
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION> <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
<path> is defined in [RFC8231]. <path> is defined in [RFC8231].
A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as A Path Computation LSP Update Request message (also referred to as
PCUpd message) [RFC8231] (Section 6.2) is a PCEP message sent by a PCUpd message; see Section 6.2 of [RFC8231]) is a PCEP message sent
PCE to a PCC to update the attributes of an LSP. The Vendor by a PCE to a PCC to update the attributes of an LSP. The Vendor
Information object can be included in a PCUpd message to convey Information object can be included in a PCUpd message to convey
proprietary or vendor-specific information. proprietary or vendor-specific information.
The format of the PCUpd message (with Section 6.2 of [RFC8231] as the The format of the PCUpd message (with Section 6.2 of [RFC8231] as the
base) is updated as follows: base) is updated as follows:
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
<update-request-list> <update-request-list>
Where:
Where:
<update-request-list> ::= <update-request> <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>
[<update-request-list>] [<update-request-list>]
<update-request> ::= <SRP> <update-request> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
<path> <path>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
Where:
Where:
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION> <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
<path> is defined in [RFC8231]. <path> is defined in [RFC8231].
A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as A Path Computation LSP Initiate Message (also referred to as
PCInitiate message) [RFC8281] (Section 5.1) is a PCEP message sent by PCInitiate message; see Section 5.1 of [RFC8281]) is a PCEP message
a PCE to a PCC to trigger an LSP instantiation or deletion. The sent by a PCE to a PCC to trigger an LSP instantiation or deletion.
Vendor Information object can be included in a PCInitiate message to The Vendor Information object can be included in a PCInitiate message
convey proprietary or vendor-specific information. to convey proprietary or vendor-specific information.
The format of the PCInitiate message (with Section 5.1 of [RFC8281] The format of the PCInitiate message (with Section 5.1 of [RFC8281]
as the base) is updated as follows: as the base) is updated as follows:
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header> <PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:
Where:
<PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>
[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>] [<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::= <PCE-initiated-lsp-request> ::=
(<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>| (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>) <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)
<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP> <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
<LSP> <LSP>
[<END-POINTS>] [<END-POINTS>]
<ERO> <ERO>
[<attribute-list>] [<attribute-list>]
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
Where: Where:
<vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION> <vendor-info-list> ::= <VENDOR-INFORMATION>
[<vendor-info-list>] [<vendor-info-list>]
<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> is as per <PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion> and <attribute-list> are as defined in
[RFC8281]. [RFC8281].
A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor A legacy implementation that does not recognize the Vendor
Information object will act according to the procedures set out in Information object will act according to the procedures set out in
[RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor [RFC8231] and [RFC8281]. An implementation that supports the Vendor
Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number Information object, but receives one carrying an Enterprise Number
that it does not support, MUST ignore the object in the same way as that it does not support, MUST ignore the object in the same way as
described in Section 2 of [RFC7470]. described in Section 2 of [RFC7470].
3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV 3. Procedures for the Vendor Information TLV
The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific The Vendor Information TLV can be used to carry vendor-specific
information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the information that applies to a specific PCEP object by including the
TLV in the object. This includes objects used in Stateful PCE TLV in the object. This includes objects used in Stateful PCE
extensions such as Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP) and LSP extensions such as Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP) and LSP
objects. All the procedures are as per section 3 of [RFC7470]. objects. All of the procedures are as described in Section 3 of
[RFC7470].
4. Manageability Considerations 4. Manageability Considerations
All manageability requirements and considerations listed in All manageability requirements and considerations listed in
[RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to PCEP protocol [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply to the PCEP
extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, the
and considerations listed in this section apply. requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.
4.1. Control of Function and Policy 4.1. Control of Function and Policy
The requirements for control of function and policy for vendor- The requirements for control of function and policy for vendor-
specific information as set out in [RFC7470] continue to apply to specific information as set out in [RFC7470] continue to apply to
Stateful PCEP extensions specified in this document. Stateful PCEP extensions specified in this document.
4.2. Information and Data Models 4.2. Information and Data Models
The PCEP YANG module is specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]. Any The PCEP YANG module is specified in [PCEP-YANG]. Any standard YANG
standard YANG module will not include details of vendor-specific module will not include details of vendor-specific information.
information. However, the standard YANG module could be extended to However, a standard YANG module could be extended to report the use
report the use of the Vendor Information object or TLV and the of the Vendor Information object or TLV and the Enterprise Numbers
Enterprise Numbers that the objects and TLVs contain. that the objects and TLVs contain.
4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 4.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
4.4. Verifying Correct Operations 4.4. Verifying Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
verification requirements in addition to those already listed in verification requirements in addition to those already listed in
[RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. [RFC5440] and [RFC8231].
4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols 4.5. Requirements On Other Protocols
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new requirements
on other protocols. on other protocols.
4.6. Impact On Network Operations 4.6. Impact on Network Operations
Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP Mechanisms defined in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231] also apply to PCEP
extensions defined in this document. extensions defined in this document.
Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] highlights how the presence of additional Section 6.6 of [RFC7470] highlights how the presence of additional
vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the vendor-specific information in PCEP messages may congest the
operations and how to detect and handle it. This also applies to operations and how to detect and handle it. This also applies to
stateful PCEP messages as outlined in Section 2. Specifically, a stateful PCEP messages as outlined in Section 2. Specifically, a
PCEP speaker SHOULD NOT include vendor information in stateful PCEP PCEP speaker SHOULD NOT include vendor information in stateful PCEP
message if it believes the recipient does not support that message if it believes the recipient does not support that
information. information.
Encoding optimization for the Vendor Information Object, for example, Encoding optimization for the Vendor Information object, for example,
in case of the object with the same content encoded for multiple in case the object has the same content encoded for multiple LSPs, is
LSPs, is considered out of the scope of this document and may be considered out of the scope of this document and may be proposed in
proposed in the future as a separate document applicable to other the future as a separate document applicable to other PCEP objects.
PCEP objects.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA actions in this document. This document has no IANA actions.
6. Implementation Status
[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR : This whole section and the reference to RFC
7942 is to be removed before publication as an RFC]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
6.1. Cisco Systems
* Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
* Implementation: Cisco IOS-XR PCE and PCC
* Description: Vendor Information Object used in PCRpt, PCUpd and
PCInitiate messages.
* Maturity Level: Production
* Coverage: Full
* Contact: ssidor@cisco.com
7. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the The protocol extensions defined in this document do not change the
nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations set out in
[RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] apply unchanged. [RFC5440], [RFC7470], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281] apply unchanged.
As per [RFC8231] it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be As per [RFC8231], it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only
activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and
PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the PCCs using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the
recommendations and best current practices in RFC 9325 [BCP195]. recommendations and best current practices in RFC 9325 [BCP195].
The use of vendor-specific information as defined in [RFC7470] and in The use of vendor-specific information as defined in [RFC7470] and in
this document may provide a covert channel that could be misused by this document may provide a covert channel that could be misused by
PCEP speaker implementations or by malicious software at PCEP PCEP speaker implementations or by malicious software at PCEP
speakers. While there is limited protection against this, an speakers. While there is limited protection against this, an
operator monitoring the PCEP sessions can detect the use of vendor- operator monitoring the PCEP sessions can detect the use of vendor-
specific information, be aware of the decoding mechanism for this specific information, be aware of the decoding mechanism for this
data, and inspect it accordingly. It is crucial for the operator to data, and inspect it accordingly. It is crucial for the operator to
remain vigilant and monitor for any potential misuse of this object. remain vigilant and monitor for any potential misuse of this object.
Appropriate steps need to be taken to prevent the installation of Appropriate steps need to be taken to prevent the installation of
malicious software at the PCEP speaker by implementing robust malicious software at the PCEP speaker by implementing robust
integrity, authentication, and authorization techniques for integrity, authentication, and authorization techniques for
installation and updating, which are out of scope of this draft. installation and updating, which are out of scope of this document.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for shepherding and for significant
contributions and suggestions.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Avantika, Deb Cooley, Éric Vyncke, Gunter
Van de Velde, John Scudder, Mahendra Singh Negi, Mahesh Jethanandani,
Mike McBride, Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele, Paul Wouters, Roman
Danyliw, Susan Hares, Swapna K, Udayasree Palle, Warren Kumari,
Wassim Haddad, Xiao Min for their reviews, comments and suggestions.
9. Contributors
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Ciena
EMail: mkoldych@proton.me
10. References 7. References
10.1. Normative References 7.1. Normative References
[BCP195] Best Current Practice 195, [BCP195] Best Current Practice 195,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp195>.
At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following: At the time of writing, this BCP comprises the following:
Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS Moriarty, K. and S. Farrell, "Deprecating TLS 1.0 and TLS
1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021, 1.1", BCP 195, RFC 8996, DOI 10.17487/RFC8996, March 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8996>.
Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati, Sheffer, Y., Saint-Andre, P., and T. Fossati,
skipping to change at page 11, line 21 skipping to change at line 410
Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
10.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [PCEP-YANG]
Dhody, D., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J. Tantsura, Dhody, D., Ed., Beeram, V. P., Hardwick, J., and J.
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Tantsura, "A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress, Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-26, 19 October Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30, 26 January
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf- 2025, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-yang-26>. pce-pcep-yang-30>.
[RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J. [RFC2578] McCloghrie, K., Ed., Perkins, D., Ed., and J.
Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information Schoenwaelder, Ed., "Structure of Management Information
Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2578, April 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2578, April 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2578>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2578>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC9371] Baber, A. and P. Hoffman, "Registration Procedures for [RFC9371] Baber, A. and P. Hoffman, "Registration Procedures for
Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)", RFC 9371, Private Enterprise Numbers (PENs)", RFC 9371,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9371, March 2023, DOI 10.17487/RFC9371, March 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9371>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9371>.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for shepherding the document and for their
significant contributions and suggestions.
Thanks to Adrian Farrel, Avantika, Deb Cooley, Éric Vyncke, Gunter
Van de Velde, John Scudder, Mahendra Singh Negi, Mahesh Jethanandani,
Mike McBride, Murray Kucherawy, Orie Steele, Paul Wouters, Roman
Danyliw, Susan Hares, Swapna K, Udayasree Palle, Warren Kumari,
Wassim Haddad, and Xiao Min for their reviews, comments and
suggestions.
Contributors
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Ciena
Email: mkoldych@proton.me
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Cheng Li Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd. Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing Beijing
100095 100095
China China
Email: c.l@huawei.com Email: c.l@huawei.com
 End of changes. 43 change blocks. 
197 lines changed or deleted 154 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48.