<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.31 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-21" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.32.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extensions for Multipath">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-21"/>
    <author initials="M." surname="Koldychev" fullname="Mike Koldychev" role="editor">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mkoldych@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Sidor" fullname="Samuel Sidor" role="editor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="March" day="19"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 33?>

<t>A Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Path can contain multiple Segment Lists,
allowing for load-balancing and protection across diverse paths.
However, current PCEP extensions for SR Policy only allow signaling of a single 
Segment List per Candidate Path.
This document defines PCEP extensions to encode multiple Segment Lists within an 
SR Policy Candidate Path, enabling multipath capabilities such as weighted or 
equal-cost load-balancing across Segment Lists.
The extensions are designed to be generic and reusable for future path types 
beyond SR Policy, and are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 45?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
<xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of Segment Routing (SR)
Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy.  In
particular, it describes the SR Candidate Path as a collection of one
or more Segment Lists.  The current PCEP specifications only allow for
signaling of one Segment List per Candidate Path.  The PCEP extension to
support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
<xref target="RFC9862"/> specifically avoids
defining how to signal multiple Segment Lists.</t>
      <t>This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling
of multipath information via PCEP. Although these extensions are
motivated by the SR Policy use case, they are also applicable
to other data plane types.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, 
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="terminology">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The following terms are used in this document:</t>
        <t>ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Equal Cost Multi Path, equally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where each path/link gets the same share of traffic as others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>W-ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Weighted ECMP, unequally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where some paths/links get more traffic than others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>PLSP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>PCE Label Switched Path, a path or set of paths computed or controlled by the PCE. In the context of SR Policy, a PLSP corresponds to a Candidate Path.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Path:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>In the context of this document, a path refers to a single forwarding path encoded in an ERO or RRO. For SR Policy, a path corresponds to a Segment List. The mechanisms defined in this document use the generic term "path" to allow applicability beyond SR Policy.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>LSP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Label Switched Path. In the context of PCEP for SR Policy <xref target="RFC9862"/>, an LSP object represents an SR Policy Candidate Path, which may contain multiple paths (Segment Lists).</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Segment List:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>An ordered list of segments that defines a forwarding path in Segment Routing, as defined in <xref target="RFC9256"/>. In PCEP for SR Policy, each Segment List is encoded as an ERO.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>ERO:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Explicit Route Object, defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, encodes an explicit path. In the context of SR Policy, an ERO encodes a Segment List.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="motivation">
      <name>Motivation</name>
      <t>This extension is motivated by the use-cases described below.</t>
      <section anchor="signaling-multiple-segment-lists-of-an-sr-candidate-path">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Segment Lists of an SR Candidate Path</name>
        <t>The Candidate Path of an SR Policy is the unit of signaling in PCEP 
<xref target="RFC9862"/>. A single Candidate Path can consist of multiple Segment Lists. 
Each Segment List is represented by an Explicit Route Object (ERO). In 
existing PCEP RFCs, a PCEP Label Switched Path (LSP) object is associated 
with exactly one ERO. This restriction prevents the encoding of multiple 
Segment Lists (i.e., multiple EROs) within the single LSP.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="splitting-of-requested-bandwidth">
        <name>Splitting of Requested Bandwidth</name>
        <t>A Path Computation Client (PCC) may request a path with 80 Gbps of 
bandwidth, but all links in the network have only 60 Gbps capacity.  The 
Path Computation Element (PCE) can return two paths, that can together carry 
80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming 80 Gbps of 
traffic among the two paths. <xref target="WEIGHT-TLV"/> introduces a new TLV that carries 
the path weight that facilitates control of load-balancing of traffic among 
the multiple paths.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="reverse-path-information">
        <name>Reverse Path Information</name>
        <t>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for 
Associated Bidirectional LSPs <xref target="RFC9059"/> defines a mechanism in PCEP to 
associate two opposite direction SR Policy Candidate Paths. However, within 
each Candidate Path there can be multiple Segment Lists, and <xref target="RFC9059"/> does 
not define a mechanism to specify mapping between Segment Lists of the forward 
and reverse Candidate Paths.</t>
        <t>Certain applications such as Circuit Style SR Policy 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy"/>, require the knowledge of reverse paths per 
Segment List, not just per Candidate Path. For example, when the headend knows 
the reverse Segment List for each forward Segment List, then Performance 
Measurement (PM)/Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) can run a separate 
session on every Segment List, by imposing a double stack (forward stack 
followed by reverse stack) onto the packet. If the reverse Segment List is 
co-routed with the forward Segment List, then the PM/BFD session would traverse 
the same links in the forward and reverse directions, thus allowing detection 
of link/node failures in both directions.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="protocol-extensions">
      <name>Protocol Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="path-attrib-object">
        <name>PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>This document defines the PATH-ATTRIB object that is used to carry per-path
information and to act as a separator between EROs/RROs in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt; Routing
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) <xref target="RFC5511"/> element.
The PATH-ATTRIB object always precedes the ERO or RRO that it applies to.  If
multiple EROs or RROs are present, then each ERO or RRO MUST be
preceded by an PATH-ATTRIB object that describes it.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is 45.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Type value is 1.</t>
        <t>The format of the PATH-ATTRIB object is shown in <xref target="fig-path-attrib"/>.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-path-attrib">
          <name>PATH-ATTRIB object format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Flags                         |R|  O  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Path ID                                |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~                     Optional TLVs                             ~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Flags (32 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>O (Operational - 3 bits): operational state of the path, same 
values as the identically named field in the LSP object <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>R (Reverse - 1 bit): Indicates this path is reverse, i.e., it
originates on the LSP destination and terminates on the
LSP source (usually the PCC headend itself).
Paths with this flag set serve only informational
purpose to the PCC.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Path ID (32 bits): 4-octet identifier that identifies a path (encoded
in the ERO/RRO) within the set of multiple paths under the PCEP LSP.
See <xref target="PATH-ID"/> for details.</t>
        <t>Optional TLVs: Variable length field that can contain one or more TLVs
that carry additional per-path information.  The specific TLVs that can
be included are defined in subsequent sections of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="METRIC">
        <name>METRIC Object</name>
        <t>The PCEP METRIC object can continue to be used at the LSP level to 
describe properties of the overall LSP. 
Mechanisms for encoding per-path metrics (e.g., a separate METRIC 
for each path) are outside the scope of this document and would 
require further extensions.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="WEIGHT-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-weight">
          <name>MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Weight                            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 61 for "MULTIPATH-WEIGHT" TLV.</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
        <t>Weight (32 bits): unsigned integer weight of this path within the 
multipath, if W-ECMP is desired. The fraction of flows that a specific 
ERO/RRO carries is derived from the ratio of its weight to the sum of the 
weights of all other paths: see <xref target="LOADBALANCING"/> for details.</t>
        <t>When the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is absent from the PATH-ATTRIB object,
or the PATH-ATTRIB object is absent from the
&lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;, then the Weight of the corresponding
path is taken to be 1.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="BACKUP-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <t>This TLV is used to describe a set of backup paths protecting a
primary path within a PCEP LSP: see <xref target="PROTECTION"/> for details.
This is similar to path protection, but works at the ECMP path level
instead of at the PCEP LSP level.</t>
        <t>This functionality is not part of the SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
but is something optional that may be implemented for certain 
specialized use cases.
One such use case is the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policy 
<xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy"/>.</t>
        <t>Support for the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is currently defined only for P2MP 
paths. Support for Point-to-Point (P2P) paths is out of scope for this 
document. If needed in the future, support for P2P paths using the 
MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV can be defined in future documents. Future documents 
that extend this TLV to support P2P paths SHOULD also define explicit 
capability exchange mechanisms to allow PCEP peers to negotiate support for 
MULTIPATH-BACKUP with P2P paths.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-backup">
          <name>MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |       Backup Path Count       |             Flags           |B|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 1                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                              ...                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID n                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 62 for "MULTIPATH-BACKUP" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4 + (N * 4) bytes (where N is the Backup Path Count)</t>
        <t>Backup Path Count (16 bits): Number of backup paths.</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>B (Pure Backup): If set, indicates the path is a backup path (e.g., for protection) 
and not used for load balancing under normal conditions. A pure backup path only
carries rerouted traffic after the protected paths fail. If this flag
is not set, or if the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is absent,
then the path is assumed to be primary that
carries normal traffic.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Backup Path IDs: A series of 4-octet identifiers that reference the 
Path ID field (see <xref target="PATH-ID"/>) of other PATH-ATTRIB objects within the 
same PCEP LSP. These referenced paths act as backup paths that protect 
this primary path. Each Backup Path ID value MUST match the Path ID of a 
PATH-ATTRIB object in the same LSP that has the B-flag set (indicating 
it is a pure backup path).</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV applied to a P2P path,
it MUST reject the path and send a PCError message with 
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and 
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR-PATH-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
Multiple instances of the TLV are allowed in the same PATH-ATTRIB object.
Each TLV instance identifies one opposite-direction path for the path 
described by this PATH-ATTRIB object. See <xref target="OPPDIR"/> for operational 
details.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-oppdir">
          <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |           Reserved            |             Flags         |L|N|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Opposite Direction Path ID                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 63 for "MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 8 bytes.</t>
        <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>N (Node co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
node co-routed with its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are node co-routed if they
traverse the same nodes, but MAY traverse different links.
If not set, the paths are not guaranteed to be node co-routed
(they may or may not traverse the same set of nodes).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>L (Link co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
link co-routed with its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are link co-routed if they
traverse the same links (but in opposite directions).
Link co-routing implies node co-routing; therefore, it is not
necessary to set the N flag when the L flag is set.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Opposite Direction Path ID (32 bits): References the Path ID field 
(see <xref target="PATH-ID"/>) of a PATH-ATTRIB object that identifies a path going 
in the opposite direction to this path. If no opposite-direction path 
exists, then this field MUST be set to 0, a value reserved to indicate 
the absence of a Path ID.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCP">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines the concept of a
Composite Candidate Path. 
A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment Lists, 
while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to 
a set of SR Policies on the same headend.
In PCEP, the Composite Candidate Path still consists of PATH-ATTRIB objects,
but ERO is replaced by Color of the recursively used SR Policy.</t>
        <t>To signal the Composite Candidate Path, we make use of the COLOR TLV, defined in
<xref target="RFC9863"/>. For a Composite Candidate Path, the COLOR TLV
is included in the PATH-ATTRIB Object, thus allowing each Composite Candidate Path
to do ECMP/W-ECMP among SR Policies identified by its constituent Colors.
If multiple COLOR TLVs are contained in the PATH-ATTRIB object, the first one 
is processed and the others MUST be ignored.</t>
        <t>An ERO MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, 
this ERO MUST contain no sub-objects. This empty ERO serves as a placeholder
to maintain compatibility with existing implementations based on the RBNF defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO for a Composite Candidate Path,
it MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation")
and Error-Value = 21 ("Non-empty path").</t>
        <t>See <xref target="CCPEX"/> for an example of the encoding.</t>
        <section anchor="PFP">
          <name>Per-Flow Candidate Path</name>
          <t>Per-Flow Candidate Path builds on top of the concept of the Composite Candidate Path.
Each Path in a Per-Flow Candidate Path is assigned a 3-bit forwarding class value, 
which allows Quality of Service (QoS) classified traffic to be steered depending on the forwarding class.</t>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-forward-class">
            <name>MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV format</name>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Reserved                       | FC  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): TBD1 for "MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
          <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          <t>FC (3 bits): Forwarding class value as defined in Section 8.6 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>. 
This value is given by the QoS classifier to traffic entering the given 
Candidate Path. Different classes of traffic that enter the given Candidate 
Path can be differentially steered into different Colors. The FC field allows 
up to 8 different forwarding classes (values 0-7). The semantics of specific FC 
values are significant at the headend node (PCC) that implements the SR Policy 
and are determined by that node's local QoS policy or configuration. 
Coordination of FC value meanings between PCEP peers (e.g., through out-of-band 
configuration management or operational procedures) is outside the scope of 
this document.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="OP">
      <name>Operation</name>
      <section anchor="capability-negotiation">
        <name>Capability Negotiation</name>
        <section anchor="multipath-capability-tlv">
          <name>Multipath Capability TLV</name>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-CAP TLV is defined. 
This TLV MAY be present in the OPEN object during PCEP session establishment.
It MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP from the PCC.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-cap">
            <name>MULTIPATH-CAP TLV format</name>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Number of Multipaths      |            Flags    |C|F|O|B|W|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): 60 for "MULTIPATH-CAP" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
          <t>Number of Multipaths (16 bits): When sent from a PCC, it indicates how many multipaths the PCC
can install in forwarding. 
From a PCE, it indicates how many multipaths the PCE can compute.
The value 255 indicates an unlimited number.
The value 0 is reserved.</t>
          <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>W-flag: whether MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>B-flag: whether MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>O-flag: In the OPEN object, this flag indicates whether the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is supported. In the LSP object, this flag 
indicates that opposite-direction path information is requested or provided 
for that specific LSP. When set by the PCC (in PCRpt/PCReq), it requests 
the PCE to provide reverse path information. When set by the PCE (in 
PCInit/PCUpd/PCRep), it indicates the PCE is providing or will provide 
reverse path information. In both cases, the PCE SHOULD provide the reverse 
path information, if it is able to.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>F-flag: whether MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>C-flag: whether Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>) is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Note that F-flag and C-flag can be set independently for capability
negotiation purposes. While Per-Flow Candidate Path (<xref target="PFP"/>) builds on
top of Composite Candidate Path, the F-flag reflects whether the
MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported, and the C-flag reflects whether
Composite Candidate Path signaling is supported. A peer that supports
Per-Flow Candidate Path MUST set both C-flag and F-flag. Note that the
F-flag is defined independently of the C-flag to allow for future use
cases that may use the MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV for purposes other
than Per-Flow Candidate Path; in such cases, the F-flag MAY be set
without the C-flag.</t>
          <t>When a PCE computes an LSP path, it MUST NOT return more forward 
multipaths than the minimum of the "Number of Multipaths" values 
advertised by both the PCE and PCC in their respective MULTIPATH-CAP TLVs 
during capability negotiation. This ensures the PCE does not exceed either 
its own computation capability or the PCC's installation capability. 
If this TLV is absent (from both OPEN and LSP objects), then the 
"Number of Multipaths" is assumed to be 1.</t>
          <t>If a PCC receives more paths than it advertised support for, it MUST 
send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and 
Error-Value = TBD3 ("Unsupported multipath capability").</t>
          <t>From the PCC, the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP, to specify per-LSP values.
The PCC MUST NOT include this TLV in the LSP object if the TLV was not
present in the OPEN objects of both PCEP peers.
TLV values in the LSP object override the session default values 
in the OPEN object. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-ATTRIB object but the multipath
capability was not successfully negotiated during session
establishment, it MUST treat this as an error. The PCEP speaker
MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD2 ("Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB
object").</t>
          <t>For example, the PCC includes this TLV in the OPEN object at session establishment,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 4 and "O-flag" to 0.
The PCC also includes this TLV in the LSP object for a particular LSP,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 16 and "O-flag" to 1.
This indicates that the PCC only wants to receive the reverse path information for that
particular LSP and that this LSP can have up to 16 multipaths,
while other LSPs can only have up to 4 multipaths.</t>
          <t>Additionally, if a PCEP speaker receives a TLV within the PATH-ATTRIB object
(such as MULTIPATH-WEIGHT, MULTIPATH-BACKUP, MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH, or
MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS) but the corresponding capability flag was not set
in the negotiated MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, it MUST treat this as an error.
The PCEP speaker MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19
("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD3 ("Unsupported multipath capability").</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="PATH-ID">
        <name>Path ID</name>
        <t>The Path ID uniquely identifies a Path within the context of an LSP.
The meaning of "Path" depends on the type of LSP:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>For a regular SR Policy Candidate Path, the Paths within that LSP
are the Segment Lists.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For a Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>), the Paths within that LSP
are the constituent SR Policies, each of which is identified by its
Color (carried in the COLOR TLV within the corresponding PATH-ATTRIB
object).</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Value 0 indicates an unallocated Path ID.
The value of 0 MAY be used when this Path is not referenced 
and the allocation of a Path ID is not necessary.</t>
        <t>Path IDs are allocated by the PCEP peer that owns the LSP.
If the LSP is delegated to the PCE, then the PCE allocates the Path IDs
and sends them in the PCReply/PCUpd/PCInitiate messages.
If the LSP is locally computed on the PCC, then the PCC allocates the
Path IDs and sends them in the PCReq/PCRpt messages.</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two Paths with the same non-zero 
Path ID, then the PCEP speaker MUST send PCError message with
Error-Type = 1 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 38 ("Conflicting Path ID"). Multiple paths MAY have Path ID 
set to 0, as this value indicates those paths are not referenced and do 
not require unique identification.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="LOADBALANCING">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal multiple paths and indicate
(un)equal loadbalancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE MAY assign a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populate
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path) (when non-zero).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object,
populating a weight value to reflect the relative loadshare that is to be
carried by the path. If the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT is not carried inside a
PATH-ATTRIB object, the PCC MUST assume the default weight of 1 when computing
the loadshare.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCC derives the fraction of flows carried by a specific primary path
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath weights.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
      <section anchor="PROTECTION">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to describe a set of backup paths protecting
a primary path within a PCEP LSP. This capability is currently defined only for P2MP 
paths. Support for P2P paths with the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is out of scope for this 
document. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is protected, specifying the backup path IDs to reflect the set of backup
paths protecting the primary path. The PCE updates the Length field and Backup Path
Count in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP according to the number of backup path IDs included.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is unprotected. In this case, MULTIPATH-BACKUP does not carry
any backup path IDs in the TLV. If the path acts as a pure backup (i.e.,
the path only carries rerouted traffic after the protected paths fail), then
the B flag MUST be set.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Primary paths which do not include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV are assumed
to be protected by all the backup paths (i.e., omitting the TLV is equivalent to
including the TLV with all the backup path IDs filled in).</t>
        <t>Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations,
such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc.
If a PCC does not support a requested backup scenario,
the PCC MUST send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").
Additionally, if a P2P path is sent with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
the PCC or PCE SHOULD reject it with the same PCError as above.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR">
        <name>Signaling Opposite-Direction Path Information</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal opposite-direction path 
associations within a PCEP LSP. This capability is used to establish 
bidirectional path relationships where forward and reverse paths can be 
explicitly mapped to each other. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCEP peer (PCC or PCE) allocates a unique Path ID to each path 
and populates it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique 
within the context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For paths that have opposite-direction counterparts, the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is added to the PATH-ATTRIB object. The 
Opposite Direction Path ID field is set to reference the Path ID of 
the corresponding opposite-direction path.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Multiple instances of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV MAY be present 
in the same PATH-ATTRIB object to support many-to-many mappings 
between forward and reverse paths. This allows a single forward path 
to map to multiple reverse paths and vice versa. Many-to-many 
mapping can occur when a Segment List contains Node Segment(s) that 
traverse parallel links at a midpoint. The reverse of this Segment 
List may require multiple Reverse Segment Lists to cover all the 
parallel links at the midpoint.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The N-flag and L-flag in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV MAY be set 
to indicate node co-routing or link co-routing respectively. These 
flags inform the receiver about the relationship between the forward 
and reverse paths.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For paths that have no opposite-direction counterpart, the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is omitted from the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Forward paths (R-flag=0) and reverse paths (R-flag=1) are included in the 
same PCEP LSP, allowing bidirectional relationships to be established 
atomically. The opposite-direction path associations MUST be symmetric 
within the same LSP. When path A references path B as its opposite-direction 
path, path B MUST also reference path A as its opposite-direction path. 
Additionally, their R-flags in the PATH-ATTRIB object MUST have opposite 
values (one set to 0, the other to 1).</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives an opposite-direction path mapping that is 
asymmetric or where the R-flags are inconsistent, it MUST send a PCError 
message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD4 
("Invalid opposite-direction path mapping").</t>
        <t>See <xref target="OPPDIREX"/> for an example of usage.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="RBNF">
      <name>PCEP Message Extensions</name>
      <t>The RBNF of PCRpt and PCUpd messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>, use a 
combination of &lt;intended-path&gt; and/or &lt;actual-path&gt;. PCReq and PCRep 
messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and extended by <xref target="RFC8231"/>, directly 
include ERO and RRO within their respective message structures rather 
than encapsulating them within &lt;intended-path&gt; or &lt;actual-path&gt; constructs.</t>
      <t>As specified in Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, within the context of messages 
that use these constructs, &lt;intended-path&gt; is represented by the ERO 
and &lt;actual-path&gt; is represented by the RRO:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO>

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO>
]]></artwork>
      <t>This document extends <xref target="RFC8231"/> by allowing multiple EROs/RROs to be
present in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO> |
                       <PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>[<intended-path-multipath>]

   <intended-path-multipath> ::= <PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>
                                 [<intended-path-multipath>]

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO> |
                     <PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>[<actual-path-multipath>]

   <actual-path-multipath> ::= <PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>
                               [<actual-path-multipath>]
]]></artwork>
      <t>Similarly, this document extends <xref target="RFC8281"/> by allowing multiple paths 
in the PCInitiate message by allowing multiple EROs with their 
associated path attributes. The PCE-initiated LSP instantiation format is 
updated to:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                          <LSP>
                                          [<END-POINTS>]
                                          <intended-path>
                                          [<attribute-list>]
]]></artwork>
      <t>where &lt;intended-path&gt; follows the recursive definition above, allowing 
multiple paths to be signaled in a single PCInitiate message. When multiple 
paths are present, each ERO MUST be preceded by a PATH-ATTRIB object that 
describes it. A single path MAY be sent as a bare ERO without PATH-ATTRIB 
for backward compatibility.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="implementation-status">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t>
      <t>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 <xref target="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.</t>
      <t>According to <xref target="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".</t>
      <section anchor="cisco-systems">
        <name>Cisco Systems</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Cisco Systems
Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE
Description: Circuit-Style SR Policies
Maturity Level: Supported feature
Coverage: Multiple Segment Lists and reverse paths in SR Policy
Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ciena-corp">
        <name>Ciena Corp</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Ciena Corp
Implementation: Head-end and controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: byadav@ciena.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="huawei-technologies">
        <name>Huawei Technologies</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: tanren@huawei.com 
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="pcep-object">
        <name>PCEP Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocation in the "PCEP Objects"
   within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
   group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | Object-Class | Name        | Object-Type       | Reference       |
 | Value        |             | Value             |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | 45           | PATH-ATTRIB | 0: Reserved       |                 |
 |              |             | 1: PATH-ATTRIB    | This document   |
 |              |             | 2-15: Unassigned  |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>Object-Type values are managed via the IETF Review policy as per <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-tlv">
        <name>PCEP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 60         | MULTIPATH-CAP                     | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 61         | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 62         | MULTIPATH-BACKUP                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 63         | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD1       | MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS           | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-error-object">
        <name>PCEP-Error Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" within the "Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | 38 - Conflicting Path ID          | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 20 - Not supported path backup    | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 21 - Non-empty path               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" within the "Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | TBD2 - Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB     | This document   |
 |            |        Object                     |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD3 - Unsupported multipath      | This document   |
 |            |        capability                 |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD4 - Invalid opposite-direction | This document   |
 |            |        path mapping               |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-cap-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, called "Flags in MULTIPATH-CAP
TLV" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-10       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 11         | C-flag: Composite Candidate       | This document   |
 |            |  Path support                     |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 12         | F-flag: MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS   | This document   |
 |            |  TLV support                      |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13         | 0-flag: MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH     | This document   |
 |            |  TLV support                      |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | B-flag: MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV      | This document   |
 |            |  support                          |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | W-flag: MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV      | This document   |
 |            |  support                          |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-path-attrib-object">
        <name>Flags in the PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the PATH-ATTRIB object,
called "Flags in PATH-ATTRIB Object" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13-15      | O-flag: Operational state         | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-backup-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
called "Flags in MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-14       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | B-flag: Pure backup               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-oppdir-path-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the flag
fields of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV,
called "Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV" within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | L-flag: Link co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | N-flag: Node co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
<xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
<xref target="RFC9862"/> and
<xref target="RFC9863"/> are applicable to this specification.</t>
      <t>As per <xref target="RFC8231"/>, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions can only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs
belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer
Security (TLS) <xref target="RFC8253"/> <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13"/> as per the 
recommendations and best current practices in <xref target="RFC9325"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="manageability-considerations">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <t>All manageability requirements and considerations listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
<xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, and <xref target="RFC9256"/> apply to the PCEP protocol
extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.</t>
      <section anchor="control-of-function-and-policy">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>A PCEP speaker (PCC or PCE) implementation SHOULD allow an operator to enable
or disable the multipath capabilities advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV
(see <xref target="OP"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="information-and-data-models">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t>It is expected that a future version of the PCEP YANG module
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang"/> will be extended to include the PCEP extensions
defined in this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="liveness-detection-and-monitoring">
        <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
        <t>The mechanisms defined in this document do not introduce any new liveness
detection or monitoring requirements in addition to those already defined
in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="verify-correct-operations">
        <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
        <t>In addition to the verification requirements in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
the following considerations apply:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the capabilities
advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV by each PCEP peer for a session
and for individual LSPs.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the PATH-ATTRIB
object and all its associated TLVs for each path within an LSP. This
includes the Path ID, weight, backup information, and
opposite-direction path associations.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD provide a mechanism to log and display
the new PCEP errors defined in this document</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="requirements-on-other-protocols">
        <name>Requirements On Other Protocols</name>
        <t>The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not impose any new
requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="impact-on-network-operations">
        <name>Impact On Network Operations</name>
        <t>The mechanisms in this document allow for more complex LSP structures
with multiple paths. Network operators should be aware of the potential
increase in PCEP message sizes and the additional state that must be
maintained by PCEP speakers. The "Number of Multipaths" field in the
MULTIPATH-CAP TLV can be used to control the scale of multipath
computations and state.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="appendix-a-examples">
      <name>Appendix A.  Examples</name>
      <section anchor="sr-policy-candidate-path-with-multiple-segment-lists">
        <name>SR Policy Candidate Path with Multiple Segment Lists</name>
        <t>Consider the following sample SR Policy.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 192.0.2.1,
                        discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
        Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
    Candidate Path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 198.51.100.1,
                        discriminator = 2>
        Preference 100
        Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
        Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>
]]></artwork>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC9862"/>, CP1 and CP2 
are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has 
a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. 
For this example, PLSP-ID 100 is assigned to CP1 and PLSP-ID 200 to CP2.</t>
        <t>The state-report (as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>) for CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
    <ERO SID-List1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>>
    <ERO SID-List2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W3>>
    <ERO SID-List3>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W4>>
    <ERO SID-List4>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The above sample state-report elements only 
specify the minimum mandatory objects, 
of course other objects like SRP, LSPA, METRIC, etc., are allowed to be 
inserted.</t>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to 1 and 
with a MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV carrying weight of "W1".</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="two-primary-paths-protected-by-one-backup-path">
        <name>Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path</name>
        <t>Suppose there are 3 paths: A, B, C.
Where A and B are primary and C is to be used only when A or B fail.
Suppose the Path IDs for A, B, C are respectively 1, 2, 3.
This would be encoded in a state-report as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO A>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO B>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 <BACKUP-TLV B=1, Backup_Paths=[]>>
    <ERO C>
]]></artwork>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to 1 and 
with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that has B-flag cleared and contains
a single backup path with Backup Path ID of 3.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCPEX">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>Consider the following Composite Candidate Path.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 192.0.2.1,
                        discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1>
        Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>This is signaled in PCEP as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
        <ASSOCIATION>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=1>>
        <ERO (empty)>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=2>>
        <ERO (empty)>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIREX">
        <name>Opposite Direction Tunnels</name>
        <t>Consider the two opposite-direction SR Policies between
endpoints H1 and E1.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <H1,M1,M2,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M3,M4,E1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <H1,M5,M6,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M7,M8,E1>

SR policy POL2 <headend = E1, color, endpoint = H1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <E1,M2,M1,H1>
        SID-List = <E1,M4,M3,H1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <E1,M6,M5,H1>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=2>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=2>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,E1>>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgement">
      <name>Acknowledgement</name>
      <t>Thanks to Adrian Farrel for shepherding this document, Dhruv
   Dhody for ideas and discussion, and Diego Achaval, Quan Xiong, Giuseppe Fioccola, Italo
   Busi, Yuan Yaping, and Cheng Li for their reviews.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="contributors">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <section anchor="original-authors">
        <name>Original Authors</name>
        <t>The following individuals, together with Mike Koldychev, are the
original authors who initiated and developed the core work of this
document. Due to the IETF guidelines on the maximum number of listed
authors, they appear here rather than in the Authors' Addresses
section, but they should be considered co-authors of this document.
Samuel Sidor joined the effort at a later stage as an additional editor.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Siva Sivabalan
   Ciena Corporation
   Email: ssivabal@ciena.com

   Tarek Saad
   Cisco Systems
   Email: tsaad@cisco.com

   Vishnu Pavan Beeram
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Email: vbeeram@juniper.net

   Hooman Bidgoli
   Nokia
   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com

   Shuping Peng
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: pengshuping@huawei.com

   Bhupendra Yadav
   Ciena
   Email: byadav@ciena.com

   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="additional-contributors">
        <name>Additional Contributors</name>
        <t>The following individuals made contributions to this document:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Andrew Stone
   Nokia
   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com

   Chen Ran
   ZTE
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9256">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="K. Talaulikar" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Talaulikar"/>
            <author fullname="D. Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bogdanov" initials="A." surname="Bogdanov"/>
            <author fullname="P. Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9256"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9862">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor"/>
            <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="H. Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli"/>
            <date month="October" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of instructions called "segments" that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated. An SR Policy is made of one or more Candidate Paths.</t>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal Candidate Paths of an SR Policy. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow delegation and setup of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP) without using the path computation request and reply messages. This document is applicable to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9862"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9862"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5511">
          <front>
            <title>Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="April" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Several protocols have been specified in the Routing Area of the IETF using a common variant of the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing message syntax. However, there is no formal definition of this version of BNF.</t>
              <t>There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and simplifies implementation.</t>
              <t>Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.</t>
              <t>This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that has been used (that we call Routing BNF) and makes it available for use by new protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5511"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5511"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8231">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="J. Medved" initials="J." surname="Medved"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="September" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8231"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8231"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9863">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
            <author fullname="B. Rajagopalan" initials="B." surname="Rajagopalan"/>
            <author fullname="V. Beeram" initials="V." surname="Beeram"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="G. Mishra" initials="G." surname="Mishra"/>
            <date month="October" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Color is a 32-bit numerical (unsigned integer) attribute used to associate a Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective. For example, a TE Tunnel constructed to deliver low latency services and whose path is optimized for delay can be tagged with a color that represents "low latency." This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9863"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9863"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8281">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="December" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8281"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8281"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8664">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8408.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8664"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8664"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8253">
          <front>
            <title>PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="D. Lopez" initials="D." surname="Lopez"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
            <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
            <date month="October" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8253"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8253"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13">
          <front>
            <title>Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Sean Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner">
              <organization>sn3rd</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Russ Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley">
              <organization>Vigil Security, LLC</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="9" month="January" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment
   restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
   secure transport for PCEP (Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol).  This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS
   implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS
   protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-04"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9325">
          <front>
            <title>Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="P. Saint-Andre" initials="P." surname="Saint-Andre"/>
            <author fullname="T. Fossati" initials="T." surname="Fossati"/>
            <date month="November" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of application protocols and can also form the basis for secure transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.</t>
              <t>RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely available. This document updates the guidance given the new environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="195"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9325"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9325"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC9059">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
            <author fullname="R. Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi"/>
            <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
            <author fullname="B. Wen" initials="B." surname="Wen"/>
            <date month="June" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an associated bidirectional LSP. These PCEP extensions can be applied either using a stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or using a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9059"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9059"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy">
          <front>
            <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Christian Schmutzer" initials="C." surname="Schmutzer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zafar Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Praveen Maheshwari" initials="P." surname="Maheshwari">
              <organization>Airtel India</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Reza Rokui" initials="R." surname="Rokui">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Andrew Stone" initials="A." surname="Stone">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="12" month="March" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for bandwidth, end-to-end recovery and
   persistent paths within a SR network.  The association of two co-
   routed unidirectional SR Policies satisfying these requirements is
   called "Circuit Style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy).

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-17"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy">
          <front>
            <title>PCEP extensions for SR P2MP Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Anuj Budhiraja" initials="A." surname="Budhiraja">
              <organization>Cisco System</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rishabh Parekh (editor)" initials="R." surname="Parekh">
              <organization>Arrcus</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="23" month="February" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are a set of
   policies that enable architecture for P2MP service delivery.  This
   document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute
   and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set of Leaf nodes.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-14"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7942">
          <front>
            <title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="July" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. 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.</t>
              <t>This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="205"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7942"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7942"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8126">
          <front>
            <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
            <date month="June" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
              <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
              <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang">
          <front>
            <title>A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram" initials="V. P." surname="Beeram">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jonathan Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick">
         </author>
            <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
              <organization>Nvidia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="26" month="January" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the
   Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
