<?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-22" 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-22"/>
    <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="24"/>
    <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 are the original authors who initiated and
developed the core work of this document. Mike Koldychev is also listed
as editor in the Authors' Addresses section. The remaining individuals
appear here rather than in the Authors' Addresses section due to the
IETF guidelines on the maximum number of listed authors, but should be
considered co-authors of this document. Samuel Sidor joined the effort
at a later stage as an additional editor.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Mike Koldychev (also listed as editor)
   Ciena Corporation
   Email: mkoldych@ciena.com

   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>
