<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629 version 1.2.6 -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-cp-validity-03"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
   <title abbrev="PCEP extension to support CPs validity">PCEP extension to support Candidate Paths validity</title>
   

   <author fullname="Ran Chen" initials="R." surname="Chen">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city>Nanjing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>chen.ran@zte.com.cn</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>

      <author fullname="Detao Zhao" initials="D." surname="Zhao">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city>Nanjing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>zhao.detao@zte.com.cn</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
     <author fullname="Samuel Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city>Bratislava</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>Slovakia</country>
        </postal>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Mike Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city></city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country></country>
        </postal>
        <email>mkoldych@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
     <author fullname="Zafar Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>zali@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
    <date year="2025"/>
    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
        in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
     in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
     necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
     purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
     specify just the year. -->

   <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

   <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
        IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
     If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
        which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

   <keyword>Internet Draft</keyword>
    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
        files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
        output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
        keywords will be used for the search engine. -->
   
   <abstract>
      <t>This document defines PCEP extensions for signaling the validity control parameters of a candidate path for an SR Policy.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
  
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
     <t>SR Policy architecture is specified in <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"></xref>.  An SR Policy comprises one or more candidate paths (CP) of which at a given time one and only one may be active (i.e., installed in forwarding and usable for steering of traffic).  Each CP in turn may have one or more SID-List of which one or more may be active; when multiple SID-List are active then traffic is load balanced over them.</t>
     <t><xref target="I-D.chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity"/> supplemented candidate path validity criterion in <xref target="RFC9256" format="default"></xref>. It defines two validity control parameters under candidate Path to control the validity judgment of candidate Path.</t>
     <t>PCEP Extensions for Segment Routing <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"></xref> specifies extensions that allow PCEP to work with basic SR-TE paths.</t>
     <t>PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> specifies extensions that allow PCEP to signal additional attributes of an SR Policy, which are not covered by <xref target="RFC8664" format="default"></xref>. SR Policy is modeled in PCEP as an Association and the SR Candidate Paths are the members of that Association. Thus the PCE can take computation and control decisions about the Candidate Paths, with the additional knowledge that these Candidate Paths belong to the same SR Policy.</t>
     <t>This document defines PCEP extensions for signaling the validity control parameters of a candidate path for an SR Policy.</t>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <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" format="default"></xref> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"></xref> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section> 
       </section>
      
   <section numbered="true" toc="default">
   <name>PCEP Extensions</name>
    <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"></xref> , TE LSPs are associated by adding them to a common association group by a PCEP peer. <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>defines SR Policy Association (SRPA), and the SR Candidate Paths are the members of this Association. We define the CP validity TLV in the SR Policy Association (SRPA) object to signal the validity control parameters of a candidate path.</t>    
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
   <name>CP Validity TLV</name>
   <t>The format of the CP Validity TLV is defined as follows:</t>
       <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          |  
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| valid SL count|                   Reserved                    |          
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     valid SL weight                           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            Figure 1.  CP Validity TLV
           ]]></artwork>
      <t>where:</t>
      <t>Type: to be assigned by IANA.</t>
      <t>Length: the total length of the value field not including Type and Length fields. The total length must be 8. </t>
      <t>valid SL count: 1-octet field which indicates the minimum number of valid segment Lists under the active candidate path. When the number of valid segment Lists under candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the candidate path is considered valid. 0 indicates no requirement for SL count.
      0xff indicates that the candidate path is considered valid only if all the segment Lists are valid.</t>
      <t>valid SL weight: 4-octet field which indicates the minimum value of the sum of the weights of the valid segment List under the active candidate Path. When the sum of the weights of the valid segment Lists under the candidate path is greater than or equal to this field, the candidate Path is considered valid. 0 indicates no requirement for weight.0xffffffff indicates that the candidate path is considered valid only if all the segment Lists are valid.</t>
      <t>Unless specifically stated otherwise, the CP Validity TLV is assumed to be single instance.  Meaning, only one instance of the TLV SHOULD be present in the object and only the first instance of the TLV SHOULD be interpreted and subsequent instances SHOULD be ignored.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
   <name>Stateful PCEP Messages</name>
  <t> As per <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"></xref>, the ASSOCIATION object MAY be carried in the PCUpd, PCRpt, and Path Computation Initiate (PCInitiate) messages. The CP Validity TLV is carried in a SR Policy Association (SRPA) object and MAY also be carried in the PCUpd, PCRpt, and Path Computation Initiate (PCInitiate) messages.</t>
  <t>When carried in a PCRpt message, this object is used to report the validity control parameters of a candidate path for a SR Policy.</t>
  <t>When an LSP is delegated to a stateful PCE, the stateful PCE can create the validity control parameters of a candidate path for a SR Policy. This is done by including the CP Validity TLV in a PCUpd message.</t>
  <t>A PCE initiating a new SR policy can also include the validity control parameters of a candidate path for this policy.  This is done by including the CP Validity TLV in a PCInitiate message.</t>
   </section>   
   </section>
  
   <section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document defines the new TLV for carrying additional information about SR Policy and SR Candidate Paths. IANA is requested to make the assignment of a new value for the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:</t>
      <figure>
        <artwork align="left" name=""><![CDATA[
  Value    Description               Reference
------- ------------------------- --------------
  TBD     CP Validity TLV          This document
            ]]></artwork>     
      </figure>
     </section>
     
     <section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
     <t>Procedures and protocol extensions defined in this document do not affect the security considerations discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>.</t>
    </section>
     
      <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>TBD.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
  </middle>
  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

 <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

   <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
    1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
    2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
       (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

    Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
    If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
    directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
    with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
    filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

  <references title="Normative References">
        <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.2119'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.9256'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8174'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8664'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.RFC.8697'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.chen-spring-sr-policy-cp-validity'?>
      <?rfc include='reference.I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp'?>
      </references>
       
    <!-- Change Log

v00 2006-03-15  EBD   Initial version

v01 2006-04-03  EBD   Moved PI location back to position 1 -
                     v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07  AH    removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
                     other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09  EBD   Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
                     Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
                     figure indent control.  Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
                     Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH     Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
                     added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD    Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative 
                     images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems).

v06 2010-04-01 TT     Changed ipr attribute values to latest ones. Changed date to
                     year only, to be consistent with the comments. Updated the 
                     IANA guidelines reference from the I-D to the finished RFC.
v07 2020-01-21 HL    Converted the template to use XML schema version 3.
    -->
 </back>
</rfc>
