draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06.txt   draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-07.txt 
PCE Working Group D. Dhody PCE Working Group D. Dhody
Internet-Draft Y. Lee Internet-Draft Y. Lee
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: April 25, 2019 D. Ceccarelli Expires: October 26, 2019 D. Ceccarelli
Ericsson Ericsson
J. Shin J. Shin
SK Telecom SK Telecom
D. King D. King
Lancaster University Lancaster University
O. Gonzalez de Dios O. Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
October 22, 2018 April 24, 2019
Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE). Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-06 draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-07
Abstract Abstract
A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on A Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) maintains information on
the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path the current network state, including: computed Label Switched Path
(LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path (LSPs), reserved resources within the network, and pending path
computation requests. This information may then be considered when computation requests. This information may then be considered when
computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated computing new traffic engineered LSPs, and for associated
and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs). and dependent LSPs, received from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).
skipping to change at page 2, line 10 skipping to change at page 2, line 10
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE . 5
3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.1 Applicability to ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2.2 End-to-End Contiguous LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.2.3 Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. PCE Initiation Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Passive Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2. Active Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Applicability to ACTN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.3. PCE Initiation Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3.1. Per Domain Stitched LSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.1. Applicability to Inter-Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1. Scalability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs) computations in response to Path Computation Clients' (PCCs)
requests. requests.
A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of A stateful PCE is capable of considering, for the purposes of
path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and path computation, not only the network state in terms of links and
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 5, line 19
Per Domain LSP that could be stitched. Per Domain LSP that could be stitched.
1.1. Requirements Language 1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here. capitals, as shown here.
1.2. Use-cases and Applicability of Hierarchical Stateful PCE
As per [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a P-PCE
maintains a domain topology map that contains the child domains and
their interconnections. Usually, the P-PCE has no information about
the content of the child domains. But if the PCE is applied to the
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453] as described
in [I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn], the Provisioning Network
Controller (PNC) can provide an abstract topology to the Multi-Domain
Service Coordinator (MDSC). Thus the P-PCE in MDSC could be aware of
topology information in much more detail than just the domain
topology.
In a PCEP session between a PCC (Ingress) and a C-PCE, the C-PCE acts
as per the stateful PCE operations described in [RFC8231] and
[RFC8281]. The same C-PCE behaves as a PCC on the PCEP session
towards the P-PCE. The P-PCE is stateful in nature and thus maintains
the state of the inter-domain LSPs that are reported to it. The
inter-domain LSP could also be delegated by the C-PCE to the P-PCE,
so that the P-PCE could update the inter-domain path. The trigger for
this update could be the LSP state change reported for this LSP or
any other LSP. It could also be a change in topology at the P-PCE
such as inter-domain link status change. In case of use of stateful
H-PCE in ACTN, a change in abstract topology learned by the P-PCE
could also trigger the update. Some other external factors (such as a
measurement probe) could also be a trigger at the P-PCE. Any such
update would require an inter-domain path recomputation as described
in [RFC6805].
The inter-domain LSP could be set up using the end-to-end signaling
as described in [RFC6805]. Additionally a per-domain stitched LSP
model is also applicable in a P-PCE initiation model. Section 3.1,
Section 3.2, and Section 3.3 describe the end-to-end Contiguous LSP
setup, whereas Section 3.3.1 describe the per-domain stitching.
1.2.1 Applicability to ACTN
[RFC8453] describes the framework for ACTN, where each PNC is
equivalent to a C-PCE, and the P-PCE is the MDSC. In this case the
P-PCE (MDSC) receives the request for inter-domain path setup as part
of the Virtual Network (VN) operations. The per-domain stitched LSP
for a P-PCE initiated model is well suited for ACTN. This is
described in Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.1 of this document.
[I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn] examines the applicability of PCE
to the ACTN framework. To support the function of multi domain
coordination via hierarchy, the hierarchy of stateful PCEs play a
crucial role.
In the ACTN framework, the Customer Network Controller (CNC) can
request the MDSC to check if there is a possibility to meet VN
requirements (before requesting for VN provisioning). The H-PCE
architecture as described in [RFC6805] can support VN compute
function via the use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path
Computation Reply (PCRep) messages between the P-PCE and C-PCEs. When
the CNC requests for VN provisioning, the MDSC decompose this request
into multiple inter-domain LSP provisioning requests, which might be
further decomposed to per-domain path segments. This is described in
Section 3.3.1. The MDSC uses the LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate)
message from the P-PCE towards the C-PCE, and the C-PCE reports the
state back to the P-PCE via a Path Computation State Report (PCRpt)
message. The P-PCE could make changes to the LSP via the use of a
Path Computation Update Request (PCUpd) message.
In this case, the P-PCE (as MDSC) interacts with multiple C-PCEs (as
PNCs) along the inter-domain path of the LSP.
1.2.2 End-to-End Contiguous LSP
Different signaling methods for inter-domain RSVP-TE signaling are
identified in [RFC4726]. Contiguous LSPs are achieved using the
procedures of [RFC3209] and [RFC3473] to create a single end-to-end
LSP that spans all domains. [RFC6805] describes the technique to
establish the optimum path when the sequence of domains is not known
in advance. It shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to
allow the optimum sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum
end-to-end path to be derived.
In case of a stateful P-PCE, the stateful P-PCE has to be aware of
the inter-domain LSPs for it to consider them during path
computation. For example, a domain diverse path from another LSP.
This is the Passive Stateful P-PCE as described in Section 3.1.
Additionally, the inter-domain LSP could be delegated to the P-PCE,
so that P-PCE could trigger an update via a PCUpd message. The update
could be triggered on receipt of the PCRpt message that indicates a
status change of this LSP or some other LSP. The other LSP could be
an associated LSP (such as protection) or an unrelated LSP whose
resource change leads to re-optimization at the P-PCE. This is the
Active Stateful Operation as described in Section 3.2. Further, the
P-PCE could be instructed to create an inter-domain LSP on its own
using the PCInitiate message for an E2E contiguous LSP. The P-PCE
would send the PCInitiate message to the Ingress domain C-PCE, which
would further instruct the Ingress PCC.
In this document, for the Contiguous LSP, the above interactions are
only between the ingress domain C-PCE and the P-PCE. The use of
stateful operations for an inter-domain LSP between the
transit/egress domain C-PCEs towards the P-PCE is out of scope of
this document.
1.2.3 Applicability of a Stateful P-PCE
[RFC8051] describes general considerations for a stateful PCE
deployment and examines its applicability and benefits, as well as
its challenges and limitations, through a number of use cases. These
are also applicable to the stateful P-PCE when used for the inter-
domain LSP path computation and setup. It should be noted that though
the stateful P-PCE has limited direct visibility inside the child
domain, it could still trigger re-optimization with the help of child
PCEs based on LSP state changes, abstract topology changes, or some
other external factors.
The C-PCE would delegate control of the inter-domain LSP to the P-PCE
so that the P-PCE can make changes to it. Note that, if the C-PCE
becomes aware of a topology change that is hidden from the P-PCE, it
could take back the delegation from the P-PCE to act on it itself.
Similarly, a P-PCE could also request for delegation if it needs to
make a change to the LSP (refer to
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]).
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
The terminology is as per [RFC4655], [RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231], The terminology is as per [RFC4655], [RFC5440], [RFC6805], [RFC8231],
and [RFC8281]. and [RFC8281].
3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE 3. Hierarchical Stateful PCE
As described in [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a As described in [RFC6805], in the hierarchical PCE architecture, a
P-PCE maintains a domain topology map that contains the child domains P-PCE maintains a domain topology map that contains the child domains
(seen as vertices in the topology) and their interconnections (links (seen as vertices in the topology) and their interconnections (links
in the topology). The P-PCE has no information about the content of in the topology). The P-PCE has no information about the content of
the child domains. Each child domain has at least one PCE capable of the child domains. Each child domain has at least one PCE capable of
computing paths across the domain. These PCEs are known as C-PCEs computing paths across the domain. These PCEs are known as C-PCEs
and have a direct relationship with the P-PCE. The P-PCE builds the and have a direct relationship with the P-PCE. The P-PCE builds the
domain topology map either via direct configuration (allowing network domain topology map either via direct configuration (allowing network
policy to also be applied) or from learned information received from policy to also be applied) or from learned information received from
each C-PCE. each C-PCE.
Note that, in the scope of this document, both the C-PCEs and the P-
PCE are stateful in nature.
[RFC8231] specifies new functions to support a stateful PCE. It also [RFC8231] specifies new functions to support a stateful PCE. It also
specifies that a function can be initiated either from a PCC towards specifies that a function can be initiated either from a PCC towards
a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C). a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C).
This document extends these functions to support H-PCE Architecture This document extends these functions to support H-PCE Architecture
from a C-PCE towards a P-PCE (CE-PE) or from a P-PCE towards a C-PCE from a C-PCE towards a P-PCE (CE-PE) or from a P-PCE towards a C-PCE
(PE-CE). All PCE types herein (i.e., PE or CE) are assumed to be (PE-CE). All PCE types herein (i.e., PE or CE) are assumed to be
'stateful PCE'. 'stateful PCE'.
A number of interactions are expected in the Hierarchical Stateful A number of interactions are expected in the Hierarchical Stateful
skipping to change at page 13, line 17 skipping to change at page 16, line 17
Lo \+---+ +---+/ Lo \+---+ +---+/
+ LSR +--+ LSR + + LSR +--+ LSR +
+ L1 + + L2 + + L1 + + L2 +
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
Figure 2: Sample Inter-Layer Topology Figure 2: Sample Inter-Layer Topology
All procedures described in Section 3 are applicable to inter-layer All procedures described in Section 3 are applicable to inter-layer
path setup as well. path setup as well.
4.2. Applicability to ACTN
[RFC8453] describes framework for Abstraction and Control of TE
Networks (ACTN), where each Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) is
equivalent to C-PCE and P-PCE is the Multi-Domain Service Coordinator
(MDSC). The Per domain stitched LSP as per the Hierarchical PCE
architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.1 is well
suited for ACTN.
[I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn] examines the applicability of PCE
to the ACTN framework. To support the function of multi domain
coordination via hierarchy, the stateful hierarchy of PCEs plays a
crucial role.
In ACTN framework, Customer Network Controller (CNC) can request the
MDSC to check if there is a possibility to meet Virtual Network (VN)
requirements (before requesting for VN provision). The H-PCE
architecture as described in [RFC6805] can supports via the use of
PCReq and PCRep messages between the P-PCE and C-PCEs.
5. Other Considerations 5. Other Considerations
5.1. Scalability Considerations 5.1. Scalability Considerations
It should be noted that if all the C-PCEs would report all the LSPs It should be noted that if all the C-PCEs would report all the LSPs
in their domain, it could lead to scalability issues for the P-PCE. in their domain, it could lead to scalability issues for the P-PCE.
Thus it is recommended to only report the LSPs which are involved in Thus it is recommended to only report the LSPs which are involved in
H-PCE, i.e. the LSPs which are either delegated to the P-PCE or H-PCE, i.e. the LSPs which are either delegated to the P-PCE or
initiated by the P-PCE. Scalability considerations for PCEP as per initiated by the P-PCE. Scalability considerations for PCEP as per
[RFC8231] continue to apply for the PCEP session between child and [RFC8231] continue to apply for the PCEP session between child and
skipping to change at page 15, line 8 skipping to change at page 17, line 37
Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the Support of the hierarchical procedure will be controlled by the
management organization responsible for each child PCE. The parent management organization responsible for each child PCE. The parent
PCE must only accept path computation requests from authorized child PCE must only accept path computation requests from authorized child
PCEs. If a parent PCE receives report from an unauthorized child PCEs. If a parent PCE receives report from an unauthorized child
PCE, the report should be dropped. All mechanism as described in PCE, the report should be dropped. All mechanism as described in
[RFC8231] and [RFC8281] continue to apply. [RFC8231] and [RFC8281] continue to apply.
7.2. Information and Data Models 7.2. Information and Data Models
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the stateful and An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the stateful and
H-PCE capabilities advertised by each peer. The PCEP YANG module [I- H-PCE capabilities advertised by each peer. The PCEP YANG module
D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to include details stateful H- [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] can be extended to include details stateful
PCE. H-PCE.
7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring 7.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness
detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already
listed in [RFC5440]. listed in [RFC5440].
7.4. Verify Correct Operations 7.4. Verify Correct Operations
Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
skipping to change at page 16, line 37 skipping to change at page 19, line 20
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path
Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE
Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
10.2. Informative References 10.2. Informative References
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-
Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473>.
[RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for
Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering", RFC 4726, DOI 10.17487/RFC4726, November
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4726>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, [RFC5520] Bradford, R., Ed., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel,
"Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path
Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5520>.
[RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel, [RFC5623] Oki, E., Takeda, T., Le Roux, JL., and A. Farrel,
"Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS "Framework for PCE-Based Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS
Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623, Traffic Engineering", RFC 5623, DOI 10.17487/RFC5623,
September 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>. September 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5623>.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>. June 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5925>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a
Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X., [RFC8232] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., Varga, R., Zhang, X.,
and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State and D. Dhody, "Optimizations of Label Switched Path State
Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232, Synchronization Procedures for a Stateful PCE", RFC 8232,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8232, September 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8232>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
skipping to change at page 17, line 36 skipping to change at page 20, line 35
[RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for [RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Ed. and Y. Lee, Ed., "Framework for
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453, Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC 8453,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018, DOI 10.17487/RFC8453, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8453>.
[I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn] [I-D.ietf-pce-applicability-actn]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "Applicability of Dhody, D., Lee, Y., and D. Ceccarelli, "Applicability of
Path Computation Element (PCE) for Abstraction and Path Computation Element (PCE) for Abstraction and
Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", draft-ietf-pce- Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", draft-ietf-pce-
applicability-actn-06 (work in progress), June 2018. applicability-actn-11 (work in progress), April 2019.
[I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync]
Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter Litkowski, S., Sivabalan, S., and D. Dhody, "Inter
Stateful Path Computation Element communication Stateful Path Computation Element communication
procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-03 (work in procedures", draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-05 (work in
progress), April 2018. progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] [I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions]
Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Dios, O., Casellas, R., and D. King, Zhang, F., Zhao, Q., Dios, O., Casellas, R., and D. King,
"Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication "Extensions to Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements Protocol (PCEP) for Hierarchical Path Computation Elements
(PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-05 (work in (PCE)", draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions-10 (work in
progress), June 2018. progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang]
Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j. Dhody, D., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and j.
jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path jefftant@gmail.com, "A YANG Data Model for Path
Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)",
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-09 (work in progress), draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-11 (work in progress),
October 2018. March 2019.
[I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain] [I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain]
Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D. Dugeon, O., Meuric, J., Lee, Y., Dhody, D., and D.
Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain Ceccarelli, "PCEP Extension for Stateful Inter-Domain
Tunnels", draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-01 (work Tunnels", draft-dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain-02 (work
in progress), July 2018. in progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-lsp-control-request]
Raghuram, A., Goddard, A., Yadlapalli, C., Karthik, J.,
Sivabalan, S., Parker, J., and M. Negi, "Ability for a
stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) to request and
obtain control of a LSP", draft-ietf-pce-lsp-control-
request-03 (work in progress), February 2019.
Appendix A. Contributor Addresses Appendix A. Contributor Addresses
Avantika Avantika
Huawei Technologies ECI Telecom
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
EMail: s.avantika.avantika@gmail.com EMail: avantika.srm@gmail.com
Xian Zhang Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129 Shenzhen, Guangdong 518129
P.R.China P.R.China
EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com EMail: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India
EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com EMail: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dhruv Dhody Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066
India India
skipping to change at page 20, line 31 skipping to change at page 23, line 25
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Telefonica I+D Telefonica I+D
Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84 Don Ramon de la Cruz 82-84
Madrid, 28045 Madrid, 28045
Spain Spain
Phone: +34913128832 Phone: +34913128832
Email: ogondio@tid.es Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
75 lines changed or deleted 201 lines changed or added

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