<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- 
     draft-rfcxml-general-template-standard-00
  
     This template includes examples of the most commonly used features of RFCXML with comments 
     explaining how to customise them. This template can be quickly turned into an I-D by editing 
     the examples provided. Look for [REPLACE], [REPLACE/DELETE], [CHECK] and edit accordingly.
     Note - 'DELETE' means delete the element or attribute, not just the contents.
     
     Documentation is at https://authors.ietf.org/en/templates-and-schemas
-->
<?xml-model href="rfc7991bis.rnc"?>  <!-- Required for schema validation and schema-aware editing -->
<!-- <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?> -->
<!-- This third-party XSLT can be enabled for direct transformations in XML processors, including most browsers -->


<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<!-- If further character entities are required then they should be added to the DOCTYPE above.
     Use of an external entity file is not recommended. -->

<rfc
  xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
  category="info"
  docName="draft-wang-idr-fc-path-attribute-00"
  ipr="trust200902"
  obsoletes=""
  updates=""
  submissionType="IETF"
  xml:lang="en"
  version="3">
<!-- [REPLACE] 
       * docName with name of your draft
     [CHECK] 
       * category should be one of std, bcp, info, exp, historic
       * ipr should be one of trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902, pre5378Trust200902
       * updates can be an RFC number as NNNN
       * obsoletes can be an RFC number as NNNN 
-->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="FC Path Attribute">A profile for FC path attribute</title>
    <!--  [REPLACE/DELETE] abbrev. The abbreviated title is required if the full title is longer than 39 characters -->

    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-wang-idr-fc-path-attribute-00"/>
   
    <author fullname="Ke Xu" initials="K" surname="Xu">
      <!-- [CHECK]
             * initials should not include an initial for the surname
             * role="editor" is optional -->
    <!-- Can have more than one author -->
      
    <!-- all of the following elements are optional -->
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
          <!-- Uses two letter country code -->
        </postal>        
        <email>xuke@tsinghua.edu.cn</email>  
        <!-- Can have more than one <email> element -->
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Xiaoliang Wang" initials="X" surname="Wang">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>wangxiaoliang0623@foxmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Zhuotao Liu" initials="Z" surname="Liu">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>zhuotaoliu@tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Qi Li" initials="Q" surname="Li">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>qli01@tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jianping Wu" initials="J" surname="Wu">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>jianping@cernet.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Yangfei Guo" initials="Y" surname="Guo">
      <organization>Zhongguancun Laboratory</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>guoyangfei@zgclab.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Jinsi Wu" initials="J" surname="Wu">
      <organization>Tsinghua University</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>        
        <email>wjs24@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
   
    <date year="2025"/>
    <!-- On draft subbmission:
         * If only the current year is specified, the current day and month will be used.
         * If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, the current day will
           be used
         * If the year is not the current one, it is necessary to specify at least a month and day="1" will be used.
    -->

    <area>Networking</area>
    <workgroup>Network Working Group</workgroup>
    <!-- "Internet Engineering Task Force" 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 RFC Series. -->

    <keyword>BGP FC</keyword>
    <!-- [REPLACE/DELETE]. Multiple allowed.  Keywords are incorporated into HTML output files for 
         use by search engines. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>
      This document specifies a mechanism for embedding a new
      path attribute, known as the FC path attribute, into
      BGP UPDATE messages. The FC (Forwarding Commitment) is a 
      cryptographically signed object to certify an AS's routing intent 
      on its directly connected hops. By incorporating the FC path 
      attribute into BGP UPDATE messages, this mechanism provides
      enhanced route authenticity and lays the groundwork for improved 
      data-plane forwarding verification. This mechanism is backward 
      compatible, which means a router that supports the attribute can 
      interoperate with a router that doesn't, allowing partial 
      deployment across the Internet.
      </t>
    </abstract>
 
  </front>

  <middle>
    
    <section>
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>
      This document describes the FC path attribute, a new attribute for providing 
      path security for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) <xref target="RFC4271"/> 
      route advertisements. That is, a BGP speaker who receives a valid 
      BGP UPDATE message with FC path attribute has the following property: 
      every Autonomous System (AS) on the path of ASes listed in the 
      UPDATE message with a corresponding FC has explicitly authorized 
      the advertisement of the route from the former AS to the 
      subsequent AS in the path. This allows verification of the AS path in
      the BGP UPDATE messages and data-plane forwarding.
      </t>

      <t>
      The FC path attribute is an optional and transitive BGP path 
      attribute. This attribute can be used by an BGP speaker supporting
      it to generate, propagate and validate BGP UPDATE messages
      containing this attribute to obtain the above assurances.
      </t>

      <t>
      A FC path attribute consists of mainly one or multiple Forwarding
      Commitments (FC). The FC path attribute is intended to be used to 
      supplement BGP origin validation <xref target="RFC6483"/> 
      <xref target="RFC6811"/>. As the AS_PATH attribute is preserved 
      and each Forwarding Commitment (FC) is a publicly verifiable code 
      certifying the correctness of a three-hop pathlet, FC path 
      attribute can provide more security than BGPsec 
      <xref target="RFC8205"/> in the case of partial deployment.
      </t>

      <t>
      The FC path attribute needs to be associated with an additional
      mechanism for providing the distribution of AS numbers and
      managing keys. The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)
      <xref target="RFC8209"/> is one of the optiions.
      </t>
      <!-- [CHECK] The 'Requirements Language' section is optional -->

    </section>
      
    <section>
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>
      The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
      "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT
      RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be
      interpreted as described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> 
      <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in
      all capitals, as shown here.
      </t>
    </section>

    <section>
      <name>The FC Path Attribute</name>
      <t>
      The FC path attribute is an optional and transitive BGP path 
      attribute within the BGP UPDATE message. BGP speakers do not
      recognize the FC path attribute SHOULD still transmit this attribute
      to their neighbors. AS a result, there is no need to establish a new
      BGP capability as defined in <xref target="RFC5492"/>.
      </t>

      <t>
      The FC path attribute consists mainly of one or multiple Forward
      Commitments (FC). The FC carries the secured information regarding
      the intent of an AS to propagate the route between neighboring ASes, and 
      includes the digital signature used to protect the information. 
      The FC path attribute is independent and doesn't affect other 
      attributes in the BGP UPDATE message. Althouge the FC path attribute
      would not modify the AS_PATH path attribute, it is REQUIRED to
      never use the AS_SET or AS_CONFED_SET according to <xref target="RFC6472"/>.
      </t>

      <section>
      <name>Forwarding Commitment</name>
      <t>
      A detailed description of the Forwarding Commitment information 
      in the FC path attribute is provided here. The specification for 
      the Forwarding Commitment is provided in Figure 1.
      </t>

      <figure>
        <name>The structure of Forwarding Commitment</name>
        <artwork name="Forwarding Commitment Structure">
          <![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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           Previous Autonomous System Number (PASN)            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           Current Autonomous System Number (CASN)             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|           Nexthop Autonomous System Number (NASN)             |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~               Subject Key Identifier (SKI)                    ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Algorithm ID |     Flags     |       Signature Length        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                          Signature                            ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          ]]>
        </artwork>
        <!-- [CHECK] markers="true" means that the rendered file will have <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> added -->
      </figure>

      <t>
      In the FC path attribute, all ASs MUST use 4-byte AS numbers in FC
      secments. Existing 2-byte AS numbers are converted into 4-nyte AS
      numbers by setting the two high-order octets of the 4-octet field
      to 0 <xref target="RFC6793"/>.
      </t>
       
      <t>
      FC segment includes the following parts.
      </t>

      <t>
      Previous Autonomous System Number (PASN, 4 octets): The PASN is the 
      AS number of the previous hop AS from whom the BGP speaker receives 
      the BGP UPDATE message. If the current AS has no previous AS hop, 
      it MUST be filled with 0.
      </t>

      <t>
      Current Autonomous System Number (CASN, 4 octets): The CASN is 
      the AS number of the BGP speaker that added this FC segment to 
      the FC path attribute.
      </t>

      <t>
      Nexthop Autonomous System Number (NASN, 4 octets): The NASN is the
      AS number of the next hop AS to whom the BGP speaker will send the 
      BGP UPDATE message.
      </t>

      <t>
      Subject Key Identifier (SKI, 20 octets): The SKI is a unique
      identifier for the public key used for signature verification. 
      If the SKI length exceeds 20 octets, it should retrieve the 
      leftmost 20 octets.
      </t>

      <t>
      Algorithm ID (1 octet): The current assigned value is 1, 
      indicating that SHA256 is used to hash the content to be signed, 
      and ECDSA is used for signing. It follows the algorithm suite 
      defined in <xref target="RFC8208"/> and its updates. Each FC 
      segment has an Algorithm ID, so there is no need to worry about 
      sudden changes in its algorithm suite. The key in FC-BGP uses the 
      BGPsec Router Key, so its generation and management follow
      <xref target="RFC8635"/>.
      </t>

      <t>
      Flags (1 octet): Several flag bits. The leftmost bit of the Flags 
      field is the Confed_Segment flag (Flags-CS). The Flags-CS flag is 
      set to 1 to indicate that the BGP speaker that constructed this FC 
      segment is sending the UPDATE message to a peer AS within the same 
      AS confederation <xref target="RFC5065"/>. In all other cases, the 
      Flags-CS flag is set to 0. The second leftmost bit (i.e., the 
      second highest) of the Flags field is the Route_Server flag 
      (Flags-RS). The Flags-RS flag is set to 1 to indicate that a route 
      server adds this FC segment, but the AS number will never appear 
      in the AS_PATH attribute. If the AS number of a router server is 
      inserted into AS_PATH, this Flags-RS flag MUST be set to 0. The
      third leftmost bit (i.e., the third highest) of the Flags field 
      is the Only_to_Customer flag (Flags-OTC). The Flags-OTC flag is 
      set to 1 to indicate that the FC segment's issuer AS sends routes 
      to its customer or peer. If this Flags-OTC flag is set, the next 
      route propagation will only be permitted to the following 
      customers. The remaining 5 bits of the Flags field are unassigned. 
      They MUST be set to 0 by the sender and ignored by the receiver.
      </t>

      <t>
      Signature Length (2 octets): It only contains the length of the 
      Signature field in octets, not including other fields.
      </t>

      <t>
      Signature (variable length): The signature content and order are 
      Signature=ECDSA(SHA256(PASN, CASN, NASN, Prefix, Prefix Length)), 
      where the Prefix is the IP address prefix which is encapsulated in 
      the BGP UPDATE, i.e. NLRI, and only one prefix is used each time. 
      When hashing and signing, the full IP address and IP prefix length 
      are used, i.e., IPv4 uses 4 octets and IPv6 uses 16 octets.
      </t>
      </section>

      <section>
      <name>FC Path Attribute</name>
      <t>
      A detailed description of the FC Path Attribute is provided here. 
      The FC path attribute is in Type-Length-Value format. The 
      specification for the FC Path Attribute is provided in Figure 2.
      </t>

      <figure>
        <name>The structure of the FC Path Attribute</name>
        <artwork name="FC Path Attribute Structure">
          <![CDATA[
 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|     Flags     |     Type      |         FCList Length         |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~                             FCList                            ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          ]]>
        </artwork>
        <!-- [CHECK] markers="true" means that the rendered file will have <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS> added -->
      </figure>

      <t>
      Flags (1 octet): The current value is 0b11010000, representing 
      the FC path attribute as optional, transitive, partial, and 
      extended-length.
      </t>

      <t>
      Type (1 octet): The current value is TBD.
      </t>

      <t>
      FCList Length (2 octets): The value is the total length of the 
      FCList in octets.
      </t>

      <t>
      FCList (variable length): The value is a sequence of FC segments, 
      in order.  
      </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section>
      <name>The FC Path Attribute in BGP UPDATE Messages</name>
      <t>
      Section 4.1 specifies how a BGP speaker supporting the FC 
      path attribute generates or modifies the FC path attribute 
      in a BGP UPDATE message.
      </t>

      <t>
      Section 4.2 specifies how a BGP speaker supporting the FC 
      path attribute processes a BGP UPDATE message containing the 
      FC path attribute upon receiving it.
      </t>
      
      <section>
        <name>Constructing the FC Path Attribute</name>
        <t>
        A BGP speaker supporting the FC path attribute SHOULD generate 
        a new FC segment or even a new FC path attribute when it 
        propagates a route to its externel neighbors. For internal 
        neighbors, the FC path attribute message remains unchanged.
        </t>

        <t>
        The information protected by the signature on a FC path 
        attribute includes the AS number of the peer to whom the 
        UPDATE message is being sent. Therefore, if a BGP speaker 
        supporting FC wishes to send a BGP UPDATE message to multiple 
        BGP peers, it MUST generate a separate BGP UPDATE message 
        containing FC path attribute for each unique peer AS to whom 
        the UPDATE message is sent.
        </t>

        <t>
        The BGP speaker supporting the FC path attribute follows a 
        specific process to create the attribute for the ongoing UPDATE 
        message. Firstly, it generates a new FC segment. If there is 
        already an existing FC path attribute, the speaker MUST prepend 
        the new FC segment to the FCList. Otherwise, the speaker generates 
        the FC path attribute and inserts it into the UPDATE message.
        </t>

        <t>
        There are three AS numbers in one FC segment. The Previous AS 
        number (PASN) is typically set to the AS number from which the 
        UPDATE message receives. However, if the speaker is located in 
        the origin AS, the PASN SHOULD be filled with 0. The Nexthop AS 
        number (NASN) is set to the AS number of the peer to whom the 
        route is advertised. So if there are several neighbors, the 
        speaker SHOULD generate separate FCs for different neighbors. 
        But it would never generate a new FC segment for the iBGP 
        neighbor.
        </t>

        <t>
        The Subject Key Identifier field (SKI) within the new FC segment 
        is populated with the identifier found in the Subject Key 
        Identifier extension of the router certificate associated with 
        the speaker. This identifier enables others to identify the 
        appropriate certificate to employ when verifying signatures in FC 
        segments attached to the router advertisement.
        </t>

        <t>
        Typically, the Flags field is set to 0, but the speaker SHOULD 
        modify it based on section 3.1. The Algorithm ID field 
        is set to 1, and the Signature Length field is populated with 
        the length (in octets) of the value in the Signature field.
        </t>

        <t>
        The Signature field in the new FC segment is a variagble length 
        field. It contains a digital signature encapsulated in DER 
        format that binds the prefix, its length, and triplet 
        (PASN, CASN, NASN) to the RPKI router certificate corresponding 
        to the FC-BGP speaker. The digital signature is computed as 
        follows: 
        Signature=ECDSA(SHA256(PASN, CASN, NASN, Prefix, Prefix Length)).
        </t>
      </section>

      <section>
        <name>Processing the FC Path Attribute</name>
        <t>
        AS supporting FC path attribute MUST additionally follow the 
        instructions in this section for processing BGP UPDATE messages 
        containing the FC path attribute, after which the speaker can 
        continue advertising the BGP route. As a prerequisite, the 
        recipient SHOULD have access to certificates.
        </t>

        <t>
        First, the integrity of the UPDATE message containing the FC path 
        attribute MUST be checked. The speaker SHOULD check the FC path 
        attribute to ensure that the entire FC path attribute is 
        syntactically correct, the triplet (PASN, CASN, NASN) fields in 
        each FC segment follow the order in AS_PATH, and each FC segment 
        contains one signature with the supported Algorithm ID. 
        </t>

        <t>
        If any of the checks for the FC path attribute fail, indicating a 
        syntactical or protocol errors, it is considered an error. In such 
        cases, FC speakers are REQUIRED to handle these errors using the 
        "treat-as-withdraw" approach as defined in <xref target="RFC7607"/>. 
        Otherwise, the speaker iterates through the FC segments. It SHOULD 
        proceed to validate the signature using the supported algorithm 
        suites. In details, it SHOULD locate the public key needed to 
        verify the signature in the current segment, compute the digest 
        function, and use the signature validation algorithm to verify 
        the signature in the current segment.
        </t>

        <t>
        If all FC segments are marked as 'Valid', then the validation 
        algorithm terminates and the UPDATE message is deemed 'Valid'. 
        Otherwise, the UPDATE message is deemed 'Not Valid'.
        </t>
      </section>
    </section>

    <section anchor="Security">
      <!-- All drafts are required to have a security considerations section. See RFC 3552 for a guide. -->
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <section>
      <name>Security Guarantees</name>
      <t>
      When the FC path attribute is used in conjunction with origin 
      validation, the following security security guarantees can be 
      achieved: The source AS in a route announcement is authorized; 
      BGP speakers on the AS path are authorized to propagate the route
      announcements; The forwarding path of packets is consistent with
      the routing path announced by the BGP speakers.  
      </t>

      <t>
      The FC path attribute is designed to enhance the security of control
      plane routing in the Internet at the network layer. Specifically, 
      It allows an AS to independently prove its BGP routing decisions with
      publicly varifiable cryptography commitments, based on which any 
      on-path AS can verify the authenticity of a BGP path. More crucially, 
      the above security guarantees offered by the FC path attribute are 
      binary, i.e., secure or non-secure. Instead, the security benefits 
      are strictly monotonically increasing as the deployment rate of the 
      FC path attribute increases.
      </t>
      </section>

      <section>
      <name>Mitigation of Denial-of-Service Attacks</name>
      <t>
      The FC path attribute involves numerous cryptographic operations, 
      which makes BGP speakers supporting it vulnerable to 
      Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks. This section addresses the 
      mitigation strategies tailored for the specific DoS threats.
      </t>

      <t>
      To reduce the impact of DoS attacks, speakers SHOULD employ an 
      UPDATE validation algorithm that prioritizes inexpensive checks 
      (such as syntax checks) before proceeding to more resource-intensive 
      operations (like signature verification).
      </t>

      <t>
      Moreover, the transmission of UPDATE messages with the FC path 
      attribute, which entails a multitude of signatures, is a 
      potential vector for denial-of-service attacks. To counter this, 
      implementations of the validation algorithm must cease signature 
      verification immediately upon encountering an invalid signature. 
      This prevents prolonged sequences of invalid signatures from being 
      exploited for DoS purposes. Additionally, implementations can 
      further mitigate such attacks by limiting validation efforts to 
      only those UPDATE messages that, if found to be valid, would be 
      chosen as the best path. In other words, if an UPDATE message 
      includes a route that would be disqualified by the best path 
      selection process for some reason (such as an excessively long 
      AS path), it is OPTIONALLY to determine its FC path attribute 
      validity status.
      </t>
      </section>

      <section>
      <name>Route Server</name>
      <t>
      When the Route Server populates its FC Segment into the FC path 
      attribute, it is secure as the path is fully deployed.
      </t>

      <t>
      When the Route Server fails to insert FC Segment, no matter 
      whether its ASN is listed in the AS path, it is considered a 
      partial deployment which poses a risk of path forgery.
      </t>
      </section>

      <section>
      <name>Three AS Numbers</name>
      <t>
      An FC segment contains only partial path information and FCs in 
      the FCList are independent. To prevent BGP Path Splicing attacks, 
      we propose to use the triplet (Previous AS Number, Current AS
      Number, Nexthop AS Number) to locate the pathlet information.
      </t>

      <t>
      But if there is no previous hop, i.e., this is the origin AS that 
      tries to add its FC segment to the BGP UPDATE message, the 
      Previous AS Number SHOULD be populated with 0. But, carefully, AS 
      0 SHOULD only be used in this case.
      </t>

      <t>
      In the context of BGP <xref target="RFC4271"/>, to detect an AS 
      routing loop, it scans the full AS path (as specified in the 
      AS_PATH attribute) and checks that the autonomous system number of 
      the local system does not appear in the AS path. As outlined in 
      <xref target="RFC7607"/>, Autonomous System 0 was listed in the 
      IANA Autonomous System Number Registry as "Reserved - May be used 
      to identify non-routed networks". So, there should be no AS 0 in 
      the AS_PATH attribute of the BGP UPDATE message. Therefore, AS 0 
      could be used to populate the PASN field when no previous AS hops 
      in the AS path.
      </t>
      </section>
    </section>
    
    <section anchor="IANA">
    <!-- All drafts are required to have an IANA considerations section. See RFC 8126 for a guide.-->
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>
      This document requires the following IANA actions:
      </t>

      <t>
      This document requests the assignment of a new attribute code 
      described in Section 1 in the "FC Path Attributes" registry. The 
      attribute code for this new path attribute "FC_PATH" to
      provide consistency between the control and data planes. This 
      document is the reference for the new attribute.
      </t>
    </section>
    
    <!-- NOTE: The Acknowledgements and Contributors sections are at the end of this template -->
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references>
      <name>Normative References</name>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.4271.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5065.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.5492.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6472.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6483.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6793.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.6811.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.7607.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8205.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8208.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8209.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="https://www.rfc-editor.org/refs/bibxml/reference.RFC.8635.xml"?>
    </references>
 </back>
</rfc>
