draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-06.txt   draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-07.txt 
PCE Working Group H. Pouyllau PCE Working Group H. Pouyllau
Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent Internet-Draft Alcatel-Lucent
Updates: 5440 (if approved) R. Theillaud Updates: 5440 (if approved) R. Theillaud
Intended status: Standards Track Marben Products Intended status: Standards Track Marben Products
Expires: February 16, 2020 J. Meuric Expires: August 11, 2020 J. Meuric
Orange Orange
H. Zheng (Editor) H. Zheng (Editor)
X. Zhang X. Zhang
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
August 15, 2019 February 8, 2020
Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol for Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol for
Enhanced Errors and Notifications Enhanced Errors and Notifications
draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-06.txt draft-ietf-pce-enhanced-errors-07
Abstract Abstract
This document defines new error and notification TLVs for the PCE This document defines new error and notification TLVs for the PCE
Communication Protocol (PCEP) specified in RFC5440, and will update Communication Protocol (PCEP) specified in RFC5440, and will update
it. It identifies the possible PCEP behaviors in case of error or it. It identifies the possible PCEP behaviors in case of error or
notification. Thus, this draft defines types of errors and how they notification. Thus, this draft defines types of errors and how they
are disclosed to other PCEs in order to support predefined PCEP are disclosed to other PCEs in order to support predefined PCEP
behaviors. behaviors.
skipping to change at page 1, line 42 skipping to change at page 1, line 42
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 11, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 11, line 22 skipping to change at page 11, line 22
any forwarded messages. Hence, a PCE SHOULD avoid forwarding the any forwarded messages. Hence, a PCE SHOULD avoid forwarding the
same message repeated to the same set of peers. Finally, when an same message repeated to the same set of peers. Finally, when an
address is loose, the forwarding SHOULD be restrained indicating what address is loose, the forwarding SHOULD be restrained indicating what
type of PCEP peers are targeted (i.e. PCE and/or PCC). type of PCEP peers are targeted (i.e. PCE and/or PCC).
5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications 5.4.3. Rules Applied to Existing Errors and Notifications
Many existing normative references states on error definitions (see Many existing normative references states on error definitions (see
for instance [RFC5440], [RFC5441],[RFC5455], [RFC5521], [RFC5557], for instance [RFC5440], [RFC5441],[RFC5455], [RFC5521], [RFC5557],
[RFC5886], [RFC8231], [RFC8232],[RFC8253], [RFC8281], [RFC8306], [RFC5886], [RFC8231], [RFC8232],[RFC8253], [RFC8281], [RFC8306],
[RFC8408], [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]). This section provides [RFC8408], [RFC8697]). This section provides processing rules for
processing rules for existing error types handling, as a existing error types handling, as a recommendation. According to the
recommendation. According to the definitions provided in this definitions provided in this document, the follwoing rules are
document, the follwoing rules are applicable: applicable:
Error-type 1, described in [RFC5440], relates to PCEP session Error-type 1, described in [RFC5440], relates to PCEP session
establishement failures. All errors of this type are local and establishement failures. All errors of this type are local and
not propagated. Hence, if a "Propagation" TLV is added to the not propagated. Hence, if a "Propagation" TLV is added to the
error message it is recommended to be set to value 0. Error- error message it is recommended to be set to value 0. Error-
values 1,2,6,7 have a high level of criticality. Hence, if the values 1,2,6,7 have a high level of criticality. Hence, if the
"Error-criticality" TLV is included within a PCErr message of type "Error-criticality" TLV is included within a PCErr message of type
1 and value 1,2,6 or 7, it is recommended to have a value of 2. 1 and value 1,2,6 or 7, it is recommended to have a value of 2.
Error-type 2,3,4, "Capability not supported", "Unknown object" and Error-type 2,3,4, "Capability not supported", "Unknown object" and
skipping to change at page 14, line 42 skipping to change at page 14, line 42
criticality" TLV may be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate whether criticality" TLV may be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate whether
the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open. the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open.
Error-type 25 of "PCEP StartTLS failure" is described in Error-type 25 of "PCEP StartTLS failure" is described in
[RFC8253]. Such errors indicate the security issue in transport [RFC8253]. Such errors indicate the security issue in transport
layer. In this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV is usually set layer. In this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV is usually set
to 2 in order to close the PCEP session. The "Propagation" TLV to 2 in order to close the PCEP session. The "Propagation" TLV
MAY also be used with such errors, depending on the detailed MAY also be used with such errors, depending on the detailed
security conditions. security conditions.
Error-type 26 of "Association Error " is described in Error-type 26 of "Association Error " is described in [RFC8697] .
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] . Such errors occur when there is Such errors occur when there is problem for LSP association. In
problem for LSP association. In this case, the "Error- this case, the "Error-criticality" TLV should be set to either 0
criticality" TLV should be set to either 0 or 1 to indicate or 1 to indicate whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP
whether the request is still valid, with the PCEP session open. session open. The "Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such
The "Propagation" TLV MAY also be used with such errors. errors.
6. Future Extension Guidelines 6. Future Extension Guidelines
Error and Notification handling in this document should be considered Error and Notification handling in this document should be considered
in PCE documents that include new errors and notifications. A in PCE documents that include new errors and notifications. A
requirement for the authors of these drafts is to evaluate the requirement for the authors of these drafts is to evaluate the
applicability of the procedure in this document and provide details applicability of the procedure in this document and provide details
about the "Error-criticality" TLV and "Propagation" TLV for errors about the "Error-criticality" TLV and "Propagation" TLV for errors
and notifications defined in the draft. Examples of this can be and notifications defined in the draft. Examples of this can be
found in section 5.4.3 of this document. found in section 5.4.3 of this document.
skipping to change at page 19, line 31 skipping to change at page 19, line 31
5: OSPF Area ID this document 5: OSPF Area ID this document
6 OSPF area ID this document 6 OSPF area ID this document
7 IS-IS Area ID this document 7 IS-IS Area ID this document
32: Autonomous system number this document 32: Autonomous system number this document
33: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject (EXRS) this document 33: Explicit Exclusion Route subobject (EXRS) this document
11. References 11. References
11.1. Normative References 11.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", draft-ietf-pce-association-group-10 (work in
progress), August 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
skipping to change at page 21, line 29 skipping to change at page 21, line 23
Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic
Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306, Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 8306,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8306>.
[RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J. [RFC8408] Sivabalan, S., Tantsura, J., Minei, I., Varga, R., and J.
Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Hardwick, "Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408, Protocol (PCEP) Messages", RFC 8408, DOI 10.17487/RFC8408,
July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>. July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8408>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.
11.2. Informational References 11.2. Informational References
[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce] [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-hpce]
Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., and D. King, Dhody, D., Lee, Y., Ceccarelli, D., Shin, J., and D. King,
"Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).", "Hierarchical Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)",
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-11 (work in progress), July draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce-15 (work in progress),
2019. October 2019.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation
Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific [RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015, Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
26 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

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