< draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-11.txt >
PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan PCE Working Group H. Ananthakrishnan
Internet-Draft Netflix Internet-Draft Netflix
Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan Intended status: Standards Track S. Sivabalan
Expires: March 3, 2020 Cisco Expires: March 19, 2020 Cisco
C. Barth C. Barth
Juniper Networks Juniper Networks
I. Minei I. Minei
Google, Inc Google, Inc
M. Negi M. Negi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
August 31, 2019 September 16, 2019
PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with PCEP Extensions for Associating Working and Protection LSPs with
Stateful PCE Stateful PCE
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-10 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-11
Abstract Abstract
An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of
computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths (MPLS LSP). Furthermore, it is also Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Furthermore, it
possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and
LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate two or delete LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate
more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection. two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 3, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on March 19, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. PCEP Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Path Protection Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Path Protection Association TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1. State Synchronization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.4. Session Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.5. Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1. Association Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.2. PPAG TLV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6.3. PCEP Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
[RFC5440] describes PCEP for communication between a Path Computation [RFC5440] describes Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
Client (PCC) and a PCE or between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. A for communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE
PCE computes paths for MPLS-TE LSPs based on various constraints and or between a pair of PCEs as per [RFC4655]. A PCE computes paths for
MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) based on various constraints and
optimization criteria. optimization criteria.
Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to Stateful PCE [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to
enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS TE LSPs between and enable stateful control of paths such as MPLS-TE LSPs between and
across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes across PCEP sessions in compliance with [RFC4657]. It includes
mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs, mechanisms to effect LSP state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs,
delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and delegation of control of LSPs to PCEs, and PCE control of timing and
sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. The
focuses on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control focus is on a model where LSPs are configured on the PCC and control
over them is delegated to the PCE. Furthermore, a mechanism to over them is delegated to the Stateful PCE. Furthermore, [RFC8281]
dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC based on the requests from a specifies a mechanism to dynamically instantiate LSPs on a PCC based
stateful PCE or a controller using stateful PCE, is specified in on the requests from a stateful PCE or a controller using stateful
[RFC8281]. PCE.
Path protection [RFC4427] refers to a paradigm in which the working Path protection [RFC4427] refers to a paradigm in which the working
LSP is protected by one or more protection LSP(s). When the working LSP is protected by one or more protection LSP(s). When the working
LSP fails, protection LSP(s) is/are activated. When the working LSPs LSP fails, protection LSP(s) is/are activated. When the working LSPs
are computed and controlled by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of are computed and controlled by the PCE, there is benefit in a mode of
operation where protection LSPs are as well. [RFC8051] describes operation where protection LSPs are as well. [RFC8051] describes
applicability of path protection in PCE deployments. applicability of path protection in PCE deployments.
This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or This document specifies a stateful PCEP extension to associate two or
more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection. The more LSPs for the purpose of setting up path protection. The
skipping to change at page 3, line 45 skipping to change at page 3, line 46
o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and retains the control of the o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and retains the control of the
LSP. The PCC computes the path itself or makes a request for path LSP. The PCC computes the path itself or makes a request for path
computation to a PCE. After the path setup, it reports the computation to a PCE. After the path setup, it reports the
information and state of the path to the PCE. This includes the information and state of the path to the PCE. This includes the
association group identifying the working and protection LSPs. association group identifying the working and protection LSPs.
This is the passive stateful mode [RFC8051]. This is the passive stateful mode [RFC8051].
o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates the control of the o A PCC initiates a protection LSP and delegates the control of the
LSP to a stateful PCE. During delegation the association group LSP to a stateful PCE. During delegation the association group
identifying the working and protection LSPs is included. The PCE identifying the working and protection LSPs is included. The PCE
computes the path for the protection LSP and update the PCC with computes the path for the protection LSP and updates the PCC with
the information about the path as long as it controls the LSP. the information about the path as long as it controls the LSP.
This is the active stateful mode [RFC8051]. This is the active stateful mode [RFC8051].
o A protection LSP could be initiated by a stateful PCE, which o A protection LSP could be initiated by a stateful PCE, which
retains the control of the LSP. The PCE is responsible for retains the control of the LSP. The PCE is responsible for
computing the path of the LSP and updating to the PCC with the computing the path of the LSP and updating to the PCC with the
information about the path. This is the PCE-Initiated mode information about the path. This is the PCE-Initiated mode
[RFC8281]. [RFC8281].
Note that protection LSP can be established (signaled) prior to the Note that a protection LSP can be established (signaled) before the
failure (in which case the LSP is said to be in standby mode failure (in which case the LSP is said to be in standby mode
[RFC4427] or a Primary LSP [RFC4872]) or post failure of the [RFC4427] or a Primary LSP [RFC4872]) or after failure of the
corresponding working LSP according to the operator choice/policy corresponding working LSP (known as a secondary LSP [RFC4872]).
(known as secondary LSP [RFC4872]). Whether to establish it before or after failure is according to
operator choice or policy.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] introduces a generic mechanism to
create a grouping of LSPs which can then be used to define create a grouping of LSPs, which can then be used to define
associations between a set of LSPs that is equally applicable to associations between a set of LSPs. The mechanism is equally
stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless PCE. applicable to stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and stateless
PCE.
This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one working LSP This document specifies a PCEP extension to associate one working LSP
with one or more protection LSPs using the generic association with one or more protection LSPs using the generic association
mechanism. mechanism.
This document describes a PCEP extension to associate protection LSPs This document describes a PCEP extension to associate protection LSPs
by creating Path Protection Association Group (PPAG) and encoding by creating Path Protection Association Group (PPAG) and encoding
this association in PCEP messages for stateful PCEP sessions. this association in PCEP messages for stateful PCEP sessions.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
skipping to change at page 6, line 31 skipping to change at page 6, line 33
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PT | Unassigned Flags |S|P| | PT | Unassigned Flags |S|P|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Path Protection Association TLV format Figure 1: Path Protection Association TLV format
Path Protection Association Flags (32 bits) - The following flags are Path Protection Association Flags (32 bits) - The following flags are
currently defined - currently defined -
Protecting (P): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of Protecting (P): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of
[RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is working or protection LSP. [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a working (0) or protection
(1) LSP.
Secondary (S): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of Secondary (S): 1 bit - This bit is as defined in Section 14.1 of
[RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is primary or secondary LSP. The [RFC4872] to indicate if the LSP is a primary (0) or secondary (1)
S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set. LSP. The S flag is ignored if the P flag is not set.
Protection Type (PT): 6 bits - This field is as defined in Protection Type (PT): 6 bits - This field is as defined in
Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] to indicate the LSP protection type in Section 14.1 of [RFC4872] to indicate the LSP protection type in
use. use.
Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on Unassigned bits are considered reserved. They MUST be set to 0 on
transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.
If the TLV is missing, it is considered that the LSP is the working If the TLV is missing, it is considered that the LSP is a working LSP
LSP (i.e. as if P bit is unset). (i.e. as if the P bit is unset).
4. Operation 4. Operation
An LSP is associated with other LSPs with which they interact by An LSP is associated with other LSPs with which it interacts by
adding them to a common association group via the ASSOCIATION object. adding them to a common association group via the ASSOCIATION object.
All procedures and error-handling for the ASSOCIATION object is as All procedures and error-handling for the ASSOCIATION object is as
per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. per [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
4.1. State Synchronization 4.1. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP During state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP
states as described in [RFC8231]. The association group membership states as described in [RFC8231]. The association group membership
pertaining to an LSP is also reported as per pertaining to an LSP is also reported as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAGs. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAGs.
skipping to change at page 7, line 18 skipping to change at page 7, line 22
4.1. State Synchronization 4.1. State Synchronization
During state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP During state synchronization, a PCC reports all the existing LSP
states as described in [RFC8231]. The association group membership states as described in [RFC8231]. The association group membership
pertaining to an LSP is also reported as per pertaining to an LSP is also reported as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAGs. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. This includes PPAGs.
4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs 4.2. PCC-Initiated LSPs
A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path A PCC can associate a set of LSPs under its control for path
protection purpose. Similarly, the PCC can remove one or more LSPs protection purposes. Similarly, the PCC can remove one or more LSPs
under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the under its control from the corresponding PPAG. In both cases, the
PCC reports the change in association to PCE(s) via Path Computation PCC reports the change in association to PCE(s) via Path Computation
Report (PCRpt) message. A PCC can also delegate the working and Report (PCRpt) messages. A PCC can also delegate the working and
protection LSPs to an active stateful PCE, where the PCE would protection LSPs to an active stateful PCE, where the PCE would
control the LSPs. The stateful PCE could update the paths and control the LSPs. The stateful PCE could update the paths and
attributes of the LSPs in the association group via Path Computation attributes of the LSPs in the association group via Path Computation
Update (PCUpd) message. A PCE could also update the association to Update (PCUpd) message. A PCE could also update the association to
the PCC via PCUpd message. These procedures are described in the PCC via PCUpd message. These procedures are described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
It is expected that both working and protection LSP are delegated It is expected that both working and protection LSPs are delegated
together (and to the same PCE) to avoid any race conditions. Refer together (and to the same PCE) to avoid any race conditions. Refer
to [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] for the problem description. to [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] for the problem description.
4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs 4.3. PCE-Initiated LSPs
A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently. A PCE can create/update working and protection LSPs independently.
As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups As specified in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], Association Groups
can be created by both the PCE and the PCC. Further, a PCE can can be created by both the PCE and the PCC. Further, a PCE can
remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in remove a protection LSP from a PPAG as specified in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The PCE uses PCUpd or Path [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. The PCE uses PCUpd or Path
skipping to change at page 8, line 39 skipping to change at page 8, line 42
the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD5 (Protection [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD5 (Protection
type is not supported). type is not supported).
A given LSP MAY belong to more than one PPAG. If there is a conflict A given LSP MAY belong to more than one PPAG. If there is a conflict
between any of the two PPAGs, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with between any of the two PPAGs, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with
Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] Error-Type 26 (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) as per and Error-Value 6 (Association information mismatch) as per
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]. [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group].
When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:N with N=1, there MUST be When the protection type is set to 1+1 or 1:1 (1:N with N=1), there
only one working LSP and one protection LSP within a PPAG. If a PCEP MUST be only one working LSP and one protection LSP within a PPAG.
speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the PCEP peer If a PCEP speaker attempts to add another working/protection LSP, the
MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error) PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 (Association Error)
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD4 (Attempt to add [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value TBD4 (Attempt to add
another working/protection LSP for Path Protection Association). another working/protection LSP for Path Protection Association).
When the protection type is set to 1:N with N>1, there MUST be only When the protection type is set to 1:N with N>1, there MUST be only
one working LSP and number of protection LSPs MUST NOT be more than N one working LSP and number of protection LSPs MUST NOT be more than N
within a PPAG. If a PCEP speaker attempts to add another working/ within a PPAG. If a PCEP speaker attempts to add another working/
protection LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26 protection LSP, the PCEP peer MUST send PCErr with Error-Type 26
(Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value (Association Error) [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] and Error-Value
TBD4 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path TBD4 (Attempt to add another working/protection LSP for Path
Protection Association). Protection Association).
skipping to change at page 9, line 21 skipping to change at page 9, line 25
(e.g., node, SRLG disjoint). This ensures that a single failure will (e.g., node, SRLG disjoint). This ensures that a single failure will
not affect both the working and protection LSPs. The disjoint not affect both the working and protection LSPs. The disjoint
requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another Association requirement for a group of LSPs is handled via another Association
type called "Disjointness Association", as described in type called "Disjointness Association", as described in
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]. The diversity requirements for [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]. The diversity requirements for
the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION the protection LSP are also handled by including both ASSOCIATION
objects identifying both the protection association group and the objects identifying both the protection association group and the
disjoint association group for the group of LSPs. disjoint association group for the group of LSPs.
[RFC4872] introduces the concept and mechanisms to support the [RFC4872] introduces the concept and mechanisms to support the
association of one LSP to another LSP across different RSVP - Traffic association of one LSP to another LSP across different RSVP Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) sessions using ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION Engineering (RSVP-TE) sessions using ASSOCIATION and PROTECTION
object. The information in the PPAG TLV in PCEP as received from the object. The information in the PPAG TLV in PCEP as received from the
PCE, is used to trigger the signalling of working LSP and protection PCE is used to trigger the signalling of working LSP and protection
LSP, with the Path Protection Association Flags mapped to the LSP, with the Path Protection Association Flags mapped to the
corresponding fields in the PROTECTION Object in RSVP-TE. corresponding fields in the PROTECTION Object in RSVP-TE.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
[Note to RFC Editor and IANA: Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4.5 contain [Note to RFC Editor and IANA: Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4.5 contain
"TBD1" through "TBD5" those should be replaced by the values that "TBD1" through "TBD5" those should be replaced by the values that
IANA assigns.] IANA assigns.]
6.1. Association Type 6.1. Association Type
skipping to change at page 12, line 33 skipping to change at page 12, line 41
We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Xian Zhang and Greg Mirsky for We would like to thank Jeff Tantsura, Xian Zhang and Greg Mirsky for
their contributions to this document. their contributions to this document.
Thanks to Ines Robles for the RTGDIR review. Thanks to Ines Robles for the RTGDIR review.
Thanks to Pete Resnick for the GENART review. Thanks to Pete Resnick for the GENART review.
Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review. Thanks to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.
Thanks to Barry Leiba for the IESG review.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative References 10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
skipping to change at page 14, line 43 skipping to change at page 15, line 9
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura, "A
YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep- Communications Protocol (PCEP)", draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019. yang-12 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity] [I-D.ietf-pce-association-diversity]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi, Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., and M. Negi,
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling", draft- Extension for LSP Diversity Constraint Signaling", draft-
ietf-pce-association-diversity-09 (work in progress), ietf-pce-association-diversity-10 (work in progress),
August 2019. August 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing] [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing]
Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W., Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing", and J. Hardwick, "PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing",
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-16 (work in progress),
March 2019. March 2019.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., Li, C., and H. Zheng, "Inter
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 52 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/