<?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 1.7.18 (Ruby 3.3.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-00" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="8231, 8233, 8281, 8623, 8664, 8685, 8697, 8745, 8733, 8779, 8780, 8800, 8934, 9050, 9059, 9168, 9357, 9504, 9603" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.22.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP-IANA">Update to the IANA PCEP Registration Procedures</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-iana-update-00"/>
    <author initials="D." surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <country>IN</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>Path Computation Element</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 49?>

<t>This document updates the registration procedure within the IANA "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" group of registries. This specification changes some of the registries with Standards Action to IETF Review as defined in RFC 8126.  This memo updates RFCs 8231, 8233, 8281, 8623, 8664, 8685, 8697, 8733, 8745, 8779, 8780, 8800, 8934, 9050, 9059, 9168, 9357, 9504, and 9603.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Discussion Venues</name>
      <t>Discussion of this document takes place on the
    Path Computation Element Working Group mailing list (pce@ietf.org),
    which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/"/>.</t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/ietf-wg-pce/draft-ietf-pce-iana-update"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 54?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The IANA "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group was populated by several RFCs produced by the Path Computation Element (PCE) working group. Most of the registries include the "IETF Review" <xref target="RFC8126"/> as registration procedures. There are a few registries that use "Standards Action". Thus the values in those registries can be assigned only through Standards Track or Best Current Practice RFCs in the IETF Stream. This memo changes the policy from Standards Action to IETF Review to allow any type of RFC under the IETF stream to make the allocation request.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="pcep-registries-affected">
      <name>PCEP Registries Affected</name>
      <t>The following table lists the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registries whose registration policy has changed from Standards Action to IETF Review.   Affected registries now list this document as a reference. Where this change is applied to a specific range of values within the particular registry, that range is given in the Remarks column.</t>
      <table>
        <name>PCEP Registries Affected</name>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <th align="left">Registry</th>
            <th align="center">RFC</th>
            <th align="right">Remarks</th>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">BU Object Type Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8233"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">LSP Object Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8231"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8231"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV Error Code Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8231"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SRP Object Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8281"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SR-ERO Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8664"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY Sub-TLV Type Indicators</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8664"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SR Capability Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8664"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">WA Object Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8780"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Wavelength Restriction TLV Action Values</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8780"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Wavelength Allocation TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8780"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">S2LS Object Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8623"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">H-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8685"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">H-PCE-FLAG TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8685"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">ASSOCIATION Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8697"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">ASSOCIATION Type Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8697"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">AUTO-BANDWIDTH-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8733"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Path Protection Association Group TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8745"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Generalized Endpoint Types</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8779"/></td>
            <td align="right">0-244</td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">GMPLS-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8779"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">DISJOINTNESS-CONFIGURATION TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8800"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SCHED-PD-LSP-ATTRIBUTE TLV Opt Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8934"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Schedule TLVs Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC8934"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">FLOWSPEC Object Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9168"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9059"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9050"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">CCI Object Flag Field for MPLS Label</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9050"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">TE-PATH-BINDING TLV BT Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9050"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9357"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">LSP Exclusion Subobject Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9504"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SRv6-ERO Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9603"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
          <tr>
            <td align="left">SRv6 Capability Flag Field</td>
            <td align="center">
              <xref target="RFC9603"/></td>
            <td align="right"> </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
Question to the WG: The current document updates all
the registries. Should we keep "Standards Action" for
some of them such as flag fields with limited bits?

Rationale: There are some registries where the space
is tight but the IETF-review is fine -- our WG and
LC process should be enough to handle the case of fewer
bits which ideally require creating a new field/registry
as we did in the past.
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This memo does not change the Security Considerations for any of the updated RFCs.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This memo is entirely about updating the IANA "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <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="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="RFC8233">
        <front>
          <title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
          <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
          <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
          <author fullname="V. Manral" initials="V." surname="Manral"/>
          <author fullname="Z. Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali"/>
          <author fullname="K. Kumaki" initials="K." surname="Kumaki"/>
          <date month="September" year="2017"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another important factor to consider during path computation.</t>
            <t>IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. 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. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8233"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8233"/>
      </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="RFC8623">
        <front>
          <title>Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Usage with Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
          <author fullname="U. Palle" initials="U." surname="Palle"/>
          <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
          <author fullname="Y. Tanaka" initials="Y." surname="Tanaka"/>
          <author fullname="V. Beeram" initials="V." surname="Beeram"/>
          <date month="June" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs). This document provides extensions required for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting P2MP TE LSPs.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8623"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8623"/>
      </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="RFC8685">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture</title>
          <author fullname="F. Zhang" initials="F." surname="Zhang"/>
          <author fullname="Q. Zhao" initials="Q." surname="Zhao"/>
          <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
          <author fullname="R. Casellas" initials="R." surname="Casellas"/>
          <author fullname="D. King" initials="D." surname="King"/>
          <date month="December" year="2019"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) architecture is defined in RFC 6805. It provides a mechanism to derive an optimum end-to-end path in a multi-domain environment by using a hierarchical relationship between domains to select the optimum sequence of domains and optimum paths across those domains.</t>
            <t>This document defines extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to support H-PCE procedures.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8685"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8685"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8697">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
          <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
          <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
          <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
          <author fullname="H. Ananthakrishnan" initials="H." surname="Ananthakrishnan"/>
          <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
          <author fullname="Y. Tanaka" initials="Y." surname="Tanaka"/>
          <date month="January" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) in the context of a Path Computation Element (PCE). This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), and it is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and the stateless PCE.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8697"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8697"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8733">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for MPLS-TE Label Switched Path (LSP) Auto-Bandwidth Adjustment with Stateful PCE</title>
          <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." role="editor" surname="Dhody"/>
          <author fullname="R. Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi"/>
          <author fullname="U. Palle" initials="U." surname="Palle"/>
          <author fullname="R. Singh" initials="R." surname="Singh"/>
          <author fullname="L. Fang" initials="L." surname="Fang"/>
          <date month="February" year="2020"/>
          <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. Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of MPLS-TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using PCEP.</t>
            <t>The auto-bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of traffic flowing through the LSP. This document describes PCEP extensions for auto-bandwidth adjustment when employing an active stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8733"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8733"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8745">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associating Working and Protection Label Switched Paths (LSPs) with Stateful PCE</title>
          <author fullname="H. Ananthakrishnan" initials="H." surname="Ananthakrishnan"/>
          <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
          <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
          <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
          <author fullname="M. Negi" initials="M." surname="Negi"/>
          <date month="March" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>An active stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) is capable of computing as well as controlling via Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). Furthermore, it is also possible for an active stateful PCE to create, maintain, and delete LSPs. This document defines the PCEP extension to associate two or more LSPs to provide end-to-end path protection.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8745"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8745"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8779">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS</title>
          <author fullname="C. Margaria" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"/>
          <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
          <author fullname="F. Zhang" initials="F." role="editor" surname="Zhang"/>
          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in RFC 7025.</t>
            <t>This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control plane to address those requirements.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8779"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8779"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8780">
        <front>
          <title>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA)</title>
          <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Lee"/>
          <author fullname="R. Casellas" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Casellas"/>
          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document provides Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). Path provisioning in WSONs requires an RWA process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8780"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8780"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8800">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Label Switched Path (LSP) Diversity Constraint Signaling</title>
          <author fullname="S. Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski"/>
          <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
          <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
          <author fullname="M. Negi" initials="M." surname="Negi"/>
          <date month="July" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document introduces a simple mechanism to associate a group of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) with the purpose of computing diverse (disjointed) paths for those LSPs. The proposed extension allows a Path Computation Client (PCC) to advertise to a Path Computation Element (PCE) that a particular LSP belongs to a particular Disjoint Association Group; thus, the PCE knows that the LSPs in the same group need to be disjoint from each other.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8800"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8800"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC8934">
        <front>
          <title>PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Label Switched Path (LSP) Scheduling with Stateful PCE</title>
          <author fullname="H. Chen" initials="H." role="editor" surname="Chen"/>
          <author fullname="Y. Zhuang" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Zhuang"/>
          <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
          <author fullname="D. Ceccarelli" initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli"/>
          <date month="October" year="2020"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>This document defines a set of extensions to the stateful PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable Label Switched Path (LSP) path computation, activation, setup, and deletion based on scheduled time intervals for the LSP and the actual network resource usage in a centralized network environment, as stated in RFC 8413.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8934"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8934"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9050">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Procedures and Extensions for Using the PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) of LSPs</title>
          <author fullname="Z. Li" initials="Z." surname="Li"/>
          <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
          <author fullname="M. Negi" initials="M." surname="Negi"/>
          <author fullname="Q. Zhao" initials="Q." surname="Zhao"/>
          <author fullname="C. Zhou" initials="C." surname="Zhou"/>
          <date month="July" year="2021"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a core component of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) systems.</t>
            <t>A PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of a distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and without necessarily completely replacing it. Thus, the Label Switched Path (LSP) can be calculated/set up/initiated and the label-forwarding entries can also be downloaded through a centralized PCE server to each network device along the path while leveraging the existing PCE technologies as much as possible.</t>
            <t>This document specifies the procedures and Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for using the PCE as the central controller for provisioning labels along the path of the static LSP.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9050"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9050"/>
      </reference>
      <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="RFC9168">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Flow Specification</title>
          <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
          <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
          <author fullname="Z. Li" initials="Z." surname="Li"/>
          <date month="January" year="2022"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) is a functional component capable of selecting paths through a traffic engineering (TE) network. These paths may be supplied in response to requests for computation or may be unsolicited requests issued by the PCE to network elements. Both approaches use the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to convey the details of the computed path.</t>
            <t>Traffic flows may be categorized and described using "Flow Specifications". RFC 8955 defines the Flow Specification and describes how Flow Specification components are used to describe traffic flows. RFC 8955 also defines how Flow Specifications may be distributed in BGP to allow specific traffic flows to be associated with routes.</t>
            <t>This document specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to support dissemination of Flow Specifications. This allows a PCE to indicate what traffic should be placed on each path that it is aware of.</t>
            <t>The extensions defined in this document include the creation, update, and withdrawal of Flow Specifications via PCEP and can be applied to tunnels initiated by the PCE or to tunnels where control is delegated to the PCE by the Path Computation Client (PCC). Furthermore, a PCC requesting a new path can include Flow Specifications in the request to indicate the purpose of the tunnel allowing the PCE to factor this into the path computation.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9168"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9168"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9357">
        <front>
          <title>Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE</title>
          <author fullname="Q. Xiong" initials="Q." surname="Xiong"/>
          <date month="February" year="2023"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.</t>
            <t>This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9357"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9357"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9504">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-Controlled Networks</title>
          <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." surname="Lee"/>
          <author fullname="H. Zheng" initials="H." surname="Zheng"/>
          <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
          <author fullname="V. Lopez" initials="V." surname="Lopez"/>
          <author fullname="Z. Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali"/>
          <date month="December" year="2023"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) has been extended to support stateful PCE functions where the stateful PCE maintains information about paths and resource usage within a network; however, these extensions do not cover all requirements for GMPLS networks.</t>
            <t>This document provides the extensions required for PCEP so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in GMPLS-controlled networks.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9504"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9504"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="RFC9603">
        <front>
          <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing</title>
          <author fullname="C. Li" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
          <author fullname="P. Kaladharan" initials="P." surname="Kaladharan"/>
          <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
          <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
          <author fullname="Y. Zhu" initials="Y." surname="Zhu"/>
          <date month="July" year="2024"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through a network using the IPv6 or MPLS data plane, employing the source routing paradigm.</t>
            <t>An SR Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE).</t>
            <t>Since SR can be applied to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes, a PCE should be able to compute an SR Path for both MPLS and IPv6 data planes. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension and mechanisms to support SR-MPLS have been defined. This document outlines the necessary extensions to support SR for the IPv6 data plane within PCEP.</t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9603"/>
        <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9603"/>
      </reference>
      <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-binding-label-sid">
        <front>
          <title>Carrying Binding Label/Segment Identifier (SID) in PCE-based Networks.</title>
          <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
            <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Clarence Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils">
            <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
            <organization>Nvidia</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Stefano Previdi" initials="S." surname="Previdi">
            <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
          </author>
          <author fullname="Cheng Li" initials="C." surname="Li">
            <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
          </author>
          <date day="27" month="March" year="2023"/>
          <abstract>
            <t>   In order to provide greater scalability, network confidentiality, and
   service independence, Segment Routing (SR) utilizes a Binding Segment
   Identifier (SID) (called BSID) as described in RFC 8402.  It is
   possible to associate a BSID to an RSVP-TE-signaled Traffic
   Engineering Label Switched Path or an SR Traffic Engineering path.
   The BSID can be used by an upstream node for steering traffic into
   the appropriate TE path to enforce SR policies.  This document
   specifies the concept of binding value, which can be either an MPLS
   label or Segment Identifier.  It further specifies an extension to
   Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol(PCEP) for
   reporting the binding value by a Path Computation Client (PCC) to the
   PCE to support PCE-based Traffic Engineering policies.

            </t>
          </abstract>
        </front>
        <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-16"/>
      </reference>
    </references>
    <?line 122?>

<section anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>Thanks to John Scudder for the initial discussion behind this document.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
