draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[]>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="Yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-dhody-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-03" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="EXP-CODEPOINT">Experimental Codepoint Allocation for Path Computation Element communication 
    Protocol (PCEP)</title>
    <author initials="D" surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
          <city>Bangalore</city>
          <region>Karnataka</region>
          <code>560066</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D" surname="King" fullname="Daniel King">
    <organization>Lancaster University</organization>
    <address>
        <postal>
          <street></street>
          <city></city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>        
          <country>UK</country>
        </postal>
        <email>d.king@lancaster.ac.uk</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="March" year="2017" />
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
   <t> 
   IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) communication 
   Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages,
   objects, TLVs). IANA established a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP
   codepoints and sub-registries. The allocation policy for each new 
   registry is by IETF Consensus.</t>
   
   <t>This document seeks to mark some codepoints for experimental usage
   of PCEP. </t>    
   </abstract>
  <note title="Requirements Language">
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
    </note>   
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" toc="default">
   <t>The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.</t>

   <t>In section 9 of <xref target="RFC5440"/>, IANA assigns values to 
   the PCEP protocol parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established 
   a new top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries.
   The allocation policy for each new registry is by IETF Consensus as 
   described in <xref target="RFC5226"/>. Specifically, new assignments 
   are made via RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek input on prospective
   assignments from appropriate persons (e.g., a relevant Working Group
   if one exists). Early
   allocation <xref target="RFC7120"/> provides some latitude for allocation of these
   code points, but is reserved
   for features that are considered appropriately stable.</t> 
      
   <t>With some recent advancement, there is an enhanced need to 
   experiment with PCEP. It is often necessary
   to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually
   test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a
   closed environment. In order to run experiment, it is important that 
   the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but any 
   future allocation. </t>
   
   <t>This document thus set apart some codepoints
   in PCEP registry and subregistries for experimental usage. </t> 
   
   
          
    </section>
<section title="PCEP Messages" toc="default">
    <t>Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
    with new PCEP messages. The suggested range is 246-255.</t>
</section>
<section title="PCEP Objects" toc="default">
    <t>Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
    with new PCEP objects. The suggested range is 224-255.</t>
</section>
<section title="PCEP TLVs" toc="default">
<t>Some codepoints are requested to be set aside for experimentation
with new PCEP TLVs. The suggested range is 65280-65535.</t>


</section>
<section title="Handling of unknown experimentation">
	<t>A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message, that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of 
	<xref target="RFC5440"/> by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability not supported). 
</t>
   <t>A PCE that does not recognize an experimental PCEP object, MUST reject the
   entire PCEP message and MUST send a PCE error message with Error-
   Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object", defined as per
   <xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
   <t>As per section 7.1 of <xref target="RFC5440"/>, unknown experimental PCEP TLV would be ignored.</t>
	</section>

    <section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default" anchor="sec_iana">
    <t>IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
    at &lt;http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep&gt;.</t>
    <section title="New PCEP Messages" toc="default">
    <t>Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP 
    Messages (see PCEP Messages at &lt;http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep&gt;).</t>
    <t>Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
    following allocations: </t>
    <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
|   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 246-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+ 
]]></artwork>
          </figure> </t>  
          
    </section>  
    <section title="New PCEP Objects" toc="default">
    <t>Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP 
    Objects (see PCEP Objects at &lt;http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep&gt;).</t>
    <t>Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the following allocations: </t>
    <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
|   Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+
| 224-255 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
+---------+-------------+-------------------+  
]]></artwork>
          </figure>   </t>                    
    </section>  
<section title="New PCEP TLVs" toc="default">
    <t>Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP 
    TLVs (see PCEP TLV Type Indicators at &lt;http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep&gt;).</t>
    <t>Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make the
    following allocations: </t>
    <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
|      Type  | Description | Allocation Policy |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+
|65280-65535 | Unassigned  | Experimental Use  |
+------------+-------------+-------------------+    
]]></artwork>
          </figure>    </t>              
    </section>     
    </section>  
    
    <section title="Allocation Policy" toc="default">
    <t>The allocation policy for the IANA request in <xref target="sec_iana"/> is "Experimental".
    As per <xref target="RFC5226"/>, IANA does not record specific assignments for any particular use for this policy.</t>
    
    <t>As the experiment/standard progress and an early IANA allocation or RFC publication happens, the IANA defined codepoints are used 
    and experimental code points are freed up.</t>
    </section>  
    
    
    <section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
    <t>This document does not introduce any new security considerations to
   the existing protocol.  Refer to <xref target="RFC5440"/> for
   further details of the specific security measures.  </t>
    </section>
      
    
    
    <section title="Acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <t>The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, 
      Adrian Farrel, Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Mueric, Lou Berger, 
      Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions. </t>
    </section>
        
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
     
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5226.xml" ?>
     <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7120.xml" ?>
     

    </references>
    <section title="Other Codepoints" toc="default">
    <t>Based on the feedback from the WG, it was decided to focus
    only on the essentials in the scope of this documents. For others,
    Experiments can use a new experimental TLV/Object instead. 
    </t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>