Internet DRAFT - draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints
PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track D. King
Expires: September 28, 2017 Lancaster University
March 27, 2017
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element
communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03
Abstract
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE)
communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs).
IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new
registry is by IETF Consensus.
This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage of
PCEP.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 28, 2017.
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT March 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Handling of unknown experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. Allocation Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Other Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol
parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top-
level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as
described in [RFC5226]. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on
prospective assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT March 2017
Working Group if one exists). Early allocation [RFC7120] provides
some latitude for allocation of these code points, but is reserved
for features that are considered appropriately stable.
With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to experiment
with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or
constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new
function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run
experiment, it is important that the value won't collide not only
with existing codepoints but any future allocation.
This document thus set apart some codepoints in PCEP registry and
subregistries for experimental usage.
2. PCEP Messages
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255.
3. PCEP Objects
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255.
4. PCEP TLVs
Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535.
5. Handling of unknown experimentation
A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message,
that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of
[RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability
not supported).
A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST
reject the entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with
Error- Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as
per [RFC5440].
As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would
be ignored.
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT March 2017
6. IANA Considerations
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
6.1. New PCEP Messages
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages
(see PCEP Messages at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 246-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
6.2. New PCEP Objects
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects
(see PCEP Objects at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 224-255 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
6.3. New PCEP TLVs
Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see
PCEP TLV Type Indicators at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>).
Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
following allocations:
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
| Type | Description | Allocation Policy |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
|65280-65535 | Unassigned | Experimental Use |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT March 2017
7. Allocation Policy
The allocation policy for the IANA request in Section 6 is
"Experimental". As per [RFC5226], IANA does not record specific
assignments for any particular use for this policy.
As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or
RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used and
experimental code points are freed up.
8. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the
specific security measures.
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Adrian
Farrel, Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff,
and Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code
Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EXP-CODEPOINT March 2017
Appendix A. Other Codepoints
Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus only on
the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others,
Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead.
Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Daniel King
Lancaster University
UK
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Dhody & King Expires September 28, 2017 [Page 6]
