<?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 1.7.31 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-23" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.32.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extensions for Multipath">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-23"/>
    <author initials="M." surname="Koldychev" fullname="Mike Koldychev" role="editor">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mkoldych@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Sidor" fullname="Samuel Sidor" role="editor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="April" day="01"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 33?>

<t>A Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Path can contain multiple Segment Lists,
allowing for load-balancing and protection across diverse paths.
However, current PCEP extensions for SR Policy only allow signaling of a single 
Segment List per Candidate Path.
This document defines PCEP extensions to encode multiple Segment Lists within an 
SR Policy Candidate Path, enabling multipath capabilities such as weighted or 
equal-cost load-balancing across Segment Lists.
The extensions are designed to be generic and reusable for future path types 
beyond SR Policy, and are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 45?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
<xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of Segment Routing (SR)
Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy.  In
particular, it describes the SR Candidate Path as a collection of one
or more Segment Lists.  The current PCEP specifications only allow for
signaling of one Segment List per Candidate Path.  The PCEP extension to
support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
<xref target="RFC9862"/> specifically avoids
defining how to signal multiple Segment Lists.</t>
      <t>This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling
of multipath information via PCEP. Although these extensions are
motivated by the SR Policy use case, they are also applicable
to other data plane types.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <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"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, 
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="terminology">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The following terms are used in this document:</t>
        <t>ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Equal Cost Multi Path, equally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where each path/link gets the same share of traffic as others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>W-ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Weighted ECMP, unequally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where some paths/links get more traffic than others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>PLSP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>PCE Label Switched Path, a path or set of paths computed or controlled by the PCE. In the context of SR Policy, a PLSP corresponds to a Candidate Path.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Path:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>In the context of this document, a path refers to a single forwarding path encoded in an ERO or RRO. For SR Policy, a path corresponds to a Segment List. The mechanisms defined in this document use the generic term "path" to allow applicability beyond SR Policy.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>LSP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Label Switched Path. In the context of PCEP for SR Policy <xref target="RFC9862"/>, an LSP object represents an SR Policy Candidate Path, which may contain multiple paths (Segment Lists).</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Segment List:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>An ordered list of segments that defines a forwarding path in Segment Routing, as defined in <xref target="RFC9256"/>. In PCEP for SR Policy, each Segment List is encoded as an ERO or RRO.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>ERO:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Explicit Route Object, defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, encodes an explicit path. In the context of SR Policy, an ERO encodes a Segment List.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>RRO:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Record Route Object, defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, encodes the actual signaled path. In the context of SR Policy, an RRO reports a Segment List.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="motivation">
      <name>Motivation</name>
      <t>This extension is motivated by the use-cases described below.</t>
      <section anchor="signaling-multiple-segment-lists-of-an-sr-candidate-path">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Segment Lists of an SR Candidate Path</name>
        <t>The Candidate Path of an SR Policy is the unit of signaling in PCEP 
<xref target="RFC9862"/>. A single Candidate Path can consist of multiple Segment Lists. 
Each Segment List is represented by an Explicit Route Object (ERO). In 
existing PCEP RFCs, a PCEP Label Switched Path (LSP) object is associated 
with exactly one ERO. This restriction prevents the encoding of multiple 
Segment Lists (i.e., multiple EROs) within the single LSP.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="splitting-of-requested-bandwidth">
        <name>Splitting of Requested Bandwidth</name>
        <t>A Path Computation Client (PCC) may request a path with 80 Gbps of 
bandwidth, but all links in the network have only 60 Gbps capacity.  The 
Path Computation Element (PCE) can return two paths, that can together carry 
80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming 80 Gbps of 
traffic among the two paths. <xref target="WEIGHT-TLV"/> introduces a new TLV that carries 
the path weight that facilitates control of load-balancing of traffic among 
the multiple paths.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="reverse-path-information">
        <name>Reverse Path Information</name>
        <t>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for 
Associated Bidirectional LSPs <xref target="RFC9059"/> defines a mechanism in PCEP to 
associate two opposite direction SR Policy Candidate Paths. However, within 
each Candidate Path there can be multiple Segment Lists, and <xref target="RFC9059"/> does 
not define a mechanism to specify mapping between Segment Lists of the forward 
and reverse Candidate Paths.</t>
        <t>Certain applications such as Circuit Style SR Policy 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy"/>, require the knowledge of reverse paths per 
Segment List, not just per Candidate Path. For example, when the headend knows 
the reverse Segment List for each forward Segment List, then Performance 
Measurement (PM)/Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) can run a separate 
session on every Segment List, by imposing a double stack (forward stack 
followed by reverse stack) onto the packet. If the reverse Segment List is 
co-routed with the forward Segment List, then the PM/BFD session would traverse 
the same links in the forward and reverse directions, thus allowing detection 
of link/node failures in both directions.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="protocol-extensions">
      <name>Protocol Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="path-attrib-object">
        <name>PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>This document defines the PATH-ATTRIB object that is used to carry per-path
information and to act as a separator between EROs/RROs in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt; Routing
Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) <xref target="RFC5511"/> element.
The PATH-ATTRIB object always precedes the ERO or RRO that it applies to.  If
multiple EROs or RROs are present, then each ERO or RRO MUST be
preceded by an PATH-ATTRIB object that describes it.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is 45.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Type value is 1.</t>
        <t>The format of the PATH-ATTRIB object is shown in <xref target="fig-path-attrib"/>.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-path-attrib">
          <name>PATH-ATTRIB object format</name>
          <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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Flags                         |R|  O  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Path ID                                |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~                     Optional TLVs                             ~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Flags (32 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>O (Operational - 3 bits): operational state of the path, same 
values as the identically named field in the LSP object <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>R (Reverse - 1 bit): Indicates this path is reverse, i.e., it
originates on the LSP destination and terminates on the
LSP source (usually the PCC headend itself).
Paths with this flag set serve only informational
purpose to the PCC.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Path ID (32 bits): 4-octet identifier that identifies a path (encoded
in the ERO/RRO) within the set of multiple paths under the PCEP LSP.
See <xref target="PATH-ID"/> for details.</t>
        <t>Optional TLVs: Variable length field that can contain one or more TLVs
that carry additional per-path information.  The specific TLVs that can
be included are defined in subsequent sections of this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="METRIC">
        <name>METRIC Object</name>
        <t>The PCEP METRIC object can continue to be used at the LSP level to 
describe properties of the overall LSP. 
Mechanisms for encoding per-path metrics (e.g., a separate METRIC 
for each path) are outside the scope of this document and would 
require further extensions.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="WEIGHT-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-weight">
          <name>MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV format</name>
          <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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Weight                            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 61 for "MULTIPATH-WEIGHT" TLV.</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
        <t>Weight (32 bits): unsigned integer weight of this path within the 
multipath, if W-ECMP is desired. The fraction of flows that a specific 
ERO/RRO carries is derived from the ratio of its weight to the sum of the 
weights of all other paths: see <xref target="LOADBALANCING"/> for details.</t>
        <t>When the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is absent from the PATH-ATTRIB object,
or the PATH-ATTRIB object is absent from the
&lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;, then the Weight of the corresponding
path is taken to be 1.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="BACKUP-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <t>This TLV is used to describe a set of backup paths protecting a
primary path within a PCEP LSP: see <xref target="PROTECTION"/> for details.
This is similar to path protection, but works at the ECMP path level
instead of at the PCEP LSP level.</t>
        <t>This functionality is not part of the SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
but is something optional that may be implemented for certain 
specialized use cases.
One such use case is the Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policy 
<xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy"/>.</t>
        <t>Support for the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is currently defined only for P2MP 
paths. Support for Point-to-Point (P2P) paths is out of scope for this 
document. If needed in the future, support for P2P paths using the 
MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV can be defined in future documents. Future documents 
that extend this TLV to support P2P paths SHOULD also define explicit 
capability exchange mechanisms to allow PCEP peers to negotiate support for 
MULTIPATH-BACKUP with P2P paths.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-backup">
          <name>MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV format</name>
          <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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |       Backup Path Count       |             Flags           |B|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 1                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                              ...                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID n                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 62 for "MULTIPATH-BACKUP" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4 + (N * 4) bytes (where N is the Backup Path Count)</t>
        <t>Backup Path Count (16 bits): Number of backup paths.</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>B (Pure Backup): If set, indicates the path is a backup path (e.g., for protection) 
and not used for load balancing under normal conditions. A pure backup path only
carries rerouted traffic after the protected paths fail. If this flag
is not set, or if the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is absent,
then the path is assumed to be primary that
carries normal traffic.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Backup Path IDs: A series of 4-octet identifiers that reference the 
Path ID field (see <xref target="PATH-ID"/>) of other PATH-ATTRIB objects within the 
same PCEP LSP. These referenced paths act as backup paths that protect 
this primary path. Each Backup Path ID value MUST match the Path ID of a 
PATH-ATTRIB object in the same LSP that has the B-flag set (indicating 
it is a pure backup path).</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV applied to a P2P path,
it MUST reject the path and send a PCError message with 
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and 
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR-PATH-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
Multiple instances of the TLV are allowed in the same PATH-ATTRIB object.
Each TLV instance identifies one opposite-direction path for the path 
described by this PATH-ATTRIB object. See <xref target="OPPDIR"/> for operational 
details.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-oppdir">
          <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV format</name>
          <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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |           Reserved            |             Flags         |L|N|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Opposite Direction Path ID                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 63 for "MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 8 bytes.</t>
        <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>N (Node co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
node co-routed with its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are node co-routed if they
traverse the same nodes, but MAY traverse different links.
If not set, the paths are not guaranteed to be node co-routed
(they may or may not traverse the same set of nodes).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>L (Link co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
link co-routed with its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are link co-routed if they
traverse the same links (but in opposite directions).
Link co-routing implies node co-routing; therefore, it is not
necessary to set the N flag when the L flag is set.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Opposite Direction Path ID (32 bits): References the Path ID field 
(see <xref target="PATH-ID"/>) of a PATH-ATTRIB object that identifies a path going 
in the opposite direction to this path. If no opposite-direction path 
exists, then this field MUST be set to 0, a value reserved to indicate 
the absence of a Path ID.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCP">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines the concept of a
Composite Candidate Path. 
A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment Lists, 
while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to 
a set of SR Policies on the same headend.
In PCEP, the Composite Candidate Path still consists of PATH-ATTRIB objects,
but ERO is replaced by Color of the recursively used SR Policy.</t>
        <t>To signal the Composite Candidate Path, we make use of the COLOR TLV, defined in
<xref target="RFC9863"/>. For a Composite Candidate Path, the COLOR TLV
is included in the PATH-ATTRIB Object, thus allowing each Composite Candidate Path
to do ECMP/W-ECMP among SR Policies identified by its constituent Colors.
If multiple COLOR TLVs are contained in the PATH-ATTRIB object, the first one 
is processed and the others MUST be ignored.</t>
        <t>An ERO MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, 
this ERO MUST contain no sub-objects. This empty ERO serves as a placeholder
to maintain compatibility with existing implementations based on the RBNF defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO for a Composite Candidate Path,
it MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation")
and Error-Value = 21 ("Non-empty path").</t>
        <t>See <xref target="CCPEX"/> for an example of the encoding.</t>
        <section anchor="PFP">
          <name>Per-Flow Candidate Path</name>
          <t>Per-Flow Candidate Path builds on top of the concept of the Composite Candidate Path.
Each Path in a Per-Flow Candidate Path is assigned a 3-bit forwarding class value, 
which allows Quality of Service (QoS) classified traffic to be steered depending on the forwarding class.</t>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-forward-class">
            <name>MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV format</name>
            <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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Reserved                       | FC  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): TBD1 for "MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
          <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          <t>FC (3 bits): Forwarding class value as defined in Section 8.6 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>. 
This value is given by the QoS classifier to traffic entering the given 
Candidate Path. Different classes of traffic that enter the given Candidate 
Path can be differentially steered into different Colors. The FC field allows 
up to 8 different forwarding classes (values 0-7). The semantics of specific FC 
values are significant at the headend node (PCC) that implements the SR Policy 
and are determined by that node's local QoS policy or configuration. 
Coordination of FC value meanings between PCEP peers (e.g., through out-of-band 
configuration management or operational procedures) is outside the scope of 
this document.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="OP">
      <name>Operation</name>
      <section anchor="capability-negotiation">
        <name>Capability Negotiation</name>
        <section anchor="multipath-capability-tlv">
          <name>Multipath Capability TLV</name>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-CAP TLV is defined. 
This TLV MAY be present in the OPEN object during PCEP session establishment.
It MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP from the PCC.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-cap">
            <name>MULTIPATH-CAP TLV format</name>
            <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            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Number of Multipaths      |            Flags    |C|F|O|B|W|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): 60 for "MULTIPATH-CAP" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4 bytes.</t>
          <t>Number of Multipaths (16 bits): When sent from a PCC, it indicates how many multipaths the PCC
can install in forwarding. 
From a PCE, it indicates how many multipaths the PCE can compute.
The value 255 indicates an unlimited number.
The value 0 is reserved.</t>
          <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>W-flag: whether MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>B-flag: whether MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>O-flag: In the OPEN object, this flag indicates whether the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is supported. In the LSP object, this flag 
indicates that opposite-direction path information is requested or provided 
for that specific LSP. When set by the PCC (in PCRpt/PCReq), it requests 
the PCE to provide reverse path information. When set by the PCE (in 
PCInit/PCUpd/PCRep), it indicates the PCE is providing or will provide 
reverse path information. In both cases, the PCE SHOULD provide the reverse 
path information, if it is able to.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>F-flag: whether MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>C-flag: whether Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>) is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to 0 on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Note that F-flag and C-flag can be set independently for capability
negotiation purposes. While Per-Flow Candidate Path (<xref target="PFP"/>) builds on
top of Composite Candidate Path, the F-flag reflects whether the
MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported, and the C-flag reflects whether
Composite Candidate Path signaling is supported. A peer that supports
Per-Flow Candidate Path MUST set both C-flag and F-flag. Note that the
F-flag is defined independently of the C-flag to allow for future use
cases that may use the MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV for purposes other
than Per-Flow Candidate Path; in such cases, the F-flag MAY be set
without the C-flag.</t>
          <t>When a PCE computes an LSP path, it MUST NOT return more forward 
multipaths than the minimum of the "Number of Multipaths" values 
advertised by both the PCE and PCC in their respective MULTIPATH-CAP TLVs 
during capability negotiation. This ensures the PCE does not exceed either 
its own computation capability or the PCC's installation capability. 
If this TLV is absent (from both OPEN and LSP objects), then the 
"Number of Multipaths" is assumed to be 1.</t>
          <t>If a PCC receives more paths than it advertised support for, it MUST 
send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and 
Error-Value = TBD3 ("Unsupported multipath capability").</t>
          <t>From the PCC, the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP, to specify per-LSP values.
The PCC MUST NOT include this TLV in the LSP object if the TLV was not
present in the OPEN objects of both PCEP peers.
TLV values in the LSP object override the session default values 
in the OPEN object. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-ATTRIB object but the multipath
capability was not successfully negotiated during session
establishment, it MUST treat this as an error. The PCEP speaker
MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD2 ("Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB
object").</t>
          <t>For example, the PCC includes this TLV in the OPEN object at session establishment,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 4 and "O-flag" to 0.
The PCC also includes this TLV in the LSP object for a particular LSP,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 16 and "O-flag" to 1.
This indicates that the PCC only wants to receive the reverse path information for that
particular LSP and that this LSP can have up to 16 multipaths,
while other LSPs can only have up to 4 multipaths.</t>
          <t>Additionally, if a PCEP speaker receives a TLV within the PATH-ATTRIB object
(such as MULTIPATH-WEIGHT, MULTIPATH-BACKUP, MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH, or
MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS) but the corresponding capability flag was not set
in the negotiated MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, it MUST treat this as an error.
The PCEP speaker MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19
("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD3 ("Unsupported multipath capability").</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="PATH-ID">
        <name>Path ID</name>
        <t>The Path ID uniquely identifies a Path within the context of an LSP.
The meaning of "Path" depends on the type of LSP:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>For a regular SR Policy Candidate Path, the Paths within that LSP
are the Segment Lists.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For a Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>), the Paths within that LSP
are the constituent SR Policies, each of which is identified by its
Color (carried in the COLOR TLV within the corresponding PATH-ATTRIB
object).</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Value 0 indicates an unallocated Path ID.
The value of 0 MAY be used when this Path is not referenced 
and the allocation of a Path ID is not necessary.</t>
        <t>Path IDs are allocated by the PCEP peer that owns the LSP.
If the LSP is delegated to the PCE, then the PCE allocates the Path IDs
and sends them in the PCReply/PCUpd/PCInitiate messages.
If the LSP is locally computed on the PCC, then the PCC allocates the
Path IDs and sends them in the PCReq/PCRpt messages.</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two Paths with the same non-zero 
Path ID, then the PCEP speaker MUST send PCError message with
Error-Type = 1 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 38 ("Conflicting Path ID"). Multiple paths MAY have Path ID 
set to 0, as this value indicates those paths are not referenced and do 
not require unique identification.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="LOADBALANCING">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal multiple paths and indicate
(un)equal loadbalancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE MAY assign a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populate
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path) (when non-zero).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object,
populating a weight value to reflect the relative loadshare that is to be
carried by the path. If the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT is not carried inside a
PATH-ATTRIB object, the PCC MUST assume the default weight of 1 when computing
the loadshare.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCC derives the fraction of flows carried by a specific primary path
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath weights.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
      <section anchor="PROTECTION">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to describe a set of backup paths protecting
a primary path within a PCEP LSP. This capability is currently defined only for P2MP 
paths. Support for P2P paths with the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is out of scope for this 
document. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is protected, specifying the backup path IDs to reflect the set of backup
paths protecting the primary path. The PCE updates the Length field and Backup Path
Count in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP according to the number of backup path IDs included.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The PCE MAY include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is unprotected. In this case, MULTIPATH-BACKUP does not carry
any backup path IDs in the TLV. If the path acts as a pure backup (i.e.,
the path only carries rerouted traffic after the protected paths fail), then
the B flag MUST be set.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Primary paths which do not include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV are assumed
to be protected by all the backup paths (i.e., omitting the TLV is equivalent to
including the TLV with all the backup path IDs filled in).</t>
        <t>Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations,
such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc.
If a PCC does not support a requested backup scenario,
the PCC MUST send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").
Additionally, if a P2P path is sent with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
the PCC or PCE SHOULD reject it with the same PCError as above.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR">
        <name>Signaling Opposite-Direction Path Information</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal opposite-direction path 
associations within a PCEP LSP. This capability is used to establish 
bidirectional path relationships where forward and reverse paths can be 
explicitly mapped to each other. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCEP peer (PCC or PCE) allocates a unique Path ID to each path 
and populates it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique 
within the context of a PLSP (PCE Label Switched Path).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For paths that have opposite-direction counterparts, the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is added to the PATH-ATTRIB object. The 
Opposite Direction Path ID field is set to reference the Path ID of 
the corresponding opposite-direction path.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Multiple instances of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV MAY be present 
in the same PATH-ATTRIB object to support many-to-many mappings 
between forward and reverse paths. This allows a single forward path 
to map to multiple reverse paths and vice versa. Many-to-many 
mapping can occur when a Segment List contains Node Segment(s) that 
traverse parallel links at a midpoint. The reverse of this Segment 
List may require multiple Reverse Segment Lists to cover all the 
parallel links at the midpoint.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The N-flag and L-flag in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV MAY be set 
to indicate node co-routing or link co-routing respectively. These 
flags inform the receiver about the relationship between the forward 
and reverse paths.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>For paths that have no opposite-direction counterpart, the 
MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is omitted from the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Forward paths (R-flag=0) and reverse paths (R-flag=1) are included in the 
same PCEP LSP, allowing bidirectional relationships to be established 
atomically. The opposite-direction path associations MUST be symmetric 
within the same LSP. When path A references path B as its opposite-direction 
path, path B MUST also reference path A as its opposite-direction path. 
Additionally, their R-flags in the PATH-ATTRIB object MUST have opposite 
values (one set to 0, the other to 1).</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives an opposite-direction path mapping that is 
asymmetric or where the R-flags are inconsistent, it MUST send a PCError 
message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD4 
("Invalid opposite-direction path mapping").</t>
        <t>See <xref target="OPPDIREX"/> for an example of usage.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="RBNF">
      <name>PCEP Message Extensions</name>
      <t>The RBNF of PCRpt and PCUpd messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>, use a 
combination of &lt;intended-path&gt; and/or &lt;actual-path&gt;. PCReq and PCRep 
messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and extended by <xref target="RFC8231"/>, directly 
include ERO and RRO within their respective message structures rather 
than encapsulating them within &lt;intended-path&gt; or &lt;actual-path&gt; constructs.</t>
      <t>As specified in Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, within the context of messages 
that use these constructs, &lt;intended-path&gt; is represented by the ERO 
and &lt;actual-path&gt; is represented by the RRO:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO>

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO>
]]></artwork>
      <t>This document extends <xref target="RFC8231"/> by allowing multiple EROs/RROs to be
present in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO> |
                       <PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>[<intended-path-multipath>]

   <intended-path-multipath> ::= <PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>
                                 [<intended-path-multipath>]

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO> |
                     <PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>[<actual-path-multipath>]

   <actual-path-multipath> ::= <PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>
                               [<actual-path-multipath>]
]]></artwork>
      <t>Similarly, this document extends <xref target="RFC8281"/> by allowing multiple paths 
in the PCInitiate message by allowing multiple EROs with their 
associated path attributes. The PCE-initiated LSP instantiation format is 
updated to:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                          <LSP>
                                          [<END-POINTS>]
                                          <intended-path>
                                          [<attribute-list>]
]]></artwork>
      <t>where &lt;intended-path&gt; follows the recursive definition above, allowing 
multiple paths to be signaled in a single PCInitiate message. When multiple 
paths are present, each ERO MUST be preceded by a PATH-ATTRIB object that 
describes it. A single path MAY be sent as a bare ERO without PATH-ATTRIB 
for backward compatibility.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="implementation-status">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t>
      <t>This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC7942"/>.
The description of implementations in this section
is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore,
no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that
was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.</t>
      <t>According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".</t>
      <section anchor="cisco-systems">
        <name>Cisco Systems</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Cisco Systems
Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE
Description: Circuit-Style SR Policies
Maturity Level: Supported feature
Coverage: Multiple Segment Lists and reverse paths in SR Policy
Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ciena-corp">
        <name>Ciena Corp</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Ciena Corp
Implementation: Head-end and controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: byadav@ciena.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="huawei-technologies">
        <name>Huawei Technologies</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: tanren@huawei.com 
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="pcep-object">
        <name>PCEP Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocation in the "PCEP Objects"
   within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
   group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | Object-Class | Name        | Object-Type       | Reference       |
 | Value        |             | Value             |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | 45           | PATH-ATTRIB | 0: Reserved       |                 |
 |              |             | 1: PATH-ATTRIB    | This document   |
 |              |             | 2-15: Unassigned  |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>Object-Type values are managed via the IETF Review policy as per <xref target="RFC8126"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-tlv">
        <name>PCEP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 60         | MULTIPATH-CAP                     | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 61         | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 62         | MULTIPATH-BACKUP                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 63         | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD1       | MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS           | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-error-object">
        <name>PCEP-Error Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" within the "Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | 38 - Conflicting Path ID          | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 20 - Not supported path backup    | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 21 - Non-empty path               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" within the "Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | TBD2 - Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB     | This document   |
 |            |        Object                     |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD3 - Unsupported multipath      | This document   |
 |            |        capability                 |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD4 - Invalid opposite-direction | This document   |
 |            |        path mapping               |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-cap-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, called "Flags in MULTIPATH-CAP
TLV" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-10       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 11         | C-flag: Composite Candidate       | This document   |
 |            |  Path support                     |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 12         | F-flag: MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS   | This document   |
 |            |  TLV support                      |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13         | 0-flag: MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH     | This document   |
 |            |  TLV support                      |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | B-flag: MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV      | This document   |
 |            |  support                          |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | W-flag: MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV      | This document   |
 |            |  support                          |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-path-attrib-object">
        <name>Flags in the PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the PATH-ATTRIB object,
called "Flags in PATH-ATTRIB Object" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13-15      | O-flag: Operational state         | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-backup-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
called "Flags in MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-14       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | B-flag: Pure backup               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-oppdir-path-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the flag
fields of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV,
called "Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV" within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | L-flag: Link co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | N-flag: Node co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
<xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
<xref target="RFC9862"/> and
<xref target="RFC9863"/> are applicable to this specification.</t>
      <t>As per <xref target="RFC8231"/>, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions can only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs
belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer
Security (TLS) <xref target="RFC8253"/> <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13"/> as per the 
recommendations and best current practices in <xref target="RFC9325"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operational-considerations">
      <name>Operational Considerations</name>
      <t>All manageability requirements and considerations listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
<xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, and <xref target="RFC9256"/> apply to the PCEP protocol
extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.</t>
      <section anchor="control-of-function-and-policy">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>A PCEP speaker (PCC or PCE) implementation SHOULD allow an operator to enable
or disable the multipath capabilities advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV
(see <xref target="OP"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="information-and-data-models">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t>It is expected that a future version of the PCEP YANG module
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang"/> will be extended to include the PCEP extensions
defined in this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="liveness-detection-and-monitoring">
        <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
        <t>The mechanisms defined in this document do not introduce any new liveness
detection or monitoring requirements in addition to those already defined
in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="verify-correct-operations">
        <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
        <t>In addition to the verification requirements in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
the following considerations apply:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the capabilities
advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV by each PCEP peer for a session
and for individual LSPs.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the PATH-ATTRIB
object and all its associated TLVs for each path within an LSP. This
includes the Path ID, weight, backup information, and
opposite-direction path associations.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD provide a mechanism to log and display
the new PCEP errors defined in this document</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="requirements-on-other-protocols">
        <name>Requirements On Other Protocols</name>
        <t>The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not impose any new
requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="impact-on-network-operations">
        <name>Impact On Network Operations</name>
        <t>The mechanisms in this document allow for more complex LSP structures
with multiple paths. Network operators should be aware of the potential
increase in PCEP message sizes and the additional state that must be
maintained by PCEP speakers. The "Number of Multipaths" field in the
MULTIPATH-CAP TLV can be used to control the scale of multipath
computations and state.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="appendix-a-examples">
      <name>Appendix A.  Examples</name>
      <section anchor="sr-policy-candidate-path-with-multiple-segment-lists">
        <name>SR Policy Candidate Path with Multiple Segment Lists</name>
        <t>Consider the following sample SR Policy.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 192.0.2.1,
                        discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
        Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
    Candidate Path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 198.51.100.1,
                        discriminator = 2>
        Preference 100
        Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
        Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>
]]></artwork>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC9862"/>, CP1 and CP2 
are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has 
a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. 
For this example, PLSP-ID 100 is assigned to CP1 and PLSP-ID 200 to CP2.</t>
        <t>The state-report (as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>) for CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
    <ERO SID-List1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>>
    <ERO SID-List2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W3>>
    <ERO SID-List3>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W4>>
    <ERO SID-List4>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The above sample state-report elements only 
specify the minimum mandatory objects, 
of course other objects like SRP, LSPA, METRIC, etc., are allowed to be 
inserted.</t>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to 1 and 
with a MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV carrying weight of "W1".</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="two-primary-paths-protected-by-one-backup-path">
        <name>Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path</name>
        <t>Suppose there are 3 paths: A, B, C.
Where A and B are primary and C is to be used only when A or B fail.
Suppose the Path IDs for A, B, C are respectively 1, 2, 3.
This would be encoded in a state-report as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO A>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO B>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 <BACKUP-TLV B=1, Backup_Paths=[]>>
    <ERO C>
]]></artwork>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to 1 and 
with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that has B-flag cleared and contains
a single backup path with Backup Path ID of 3.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCPEX">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>Consider the following Composite Candidate Path.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator-asn = 100,
                        originator-address = 192.0.2.1,
                        discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1>
        Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>This is signaled in PCEP as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
        <ASSOCIATION>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=1>>
        <ERO (empty)>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=2>>
        <ERO (empty)>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIREX">
        <name>Opposite Direction Tunnels</name>
        <t>Consider the two opposite-direction SR Policies between
endpoints H1 and E1.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <H1,M1,M2,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M3,M4,E1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <H1,M5,M6,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M7,M8,E1>

SR policy POL2 <headend = E1, color, endpoint = H1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <E1,M2,M1,H1>
        SID-List = <E1,M4,M3,H1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <E1,M6,M5,H1>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=2>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=2>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP-ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,E1>>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgement">
      <name>Acknowledgement</name>
      <t>Thanks to Adrian Farrel for shepherding this document, Dhruv
   Dhody for ideas and discussion, and Diego Achaval, Quan Xiong, Giuseppe Fioccola, Italo
   Busi, Yuan Yaping, and Cheng Li for their reviews.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="contributors">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <section anchor="original-authors">
        <name>Original Authors</name>
        <t>The following individuals are the original authors who initiated and
developed the core work of this document. Mike Koldychev is also listed
as editor in the Authors' Addresses section. The remaining individuals
appear here rather than in the Authors' Addresses section due to the
IETF guidelines on the maximum number of listed authors, but should be
considered co-authors of this document. Samuel Sidor joined the effort
at a later stage as an additional editor.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Mike Koldychev (also listed as editor)
   Ciena Corporation
   Email: mkoldych@ciena.com

   Siva Sivabalan
   Ciena Corporation
   Email: ssivabal@ciena.com

   Tarek Saad
   Cisco Systems
   Email: tsaad@cisco.com

   Vishnu Pavan Beeram
   Juniper Networks, Inc.
   Email: vbeeram@juniper.net

   Hooman Bidgoli
   Nokia
   Email: hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com

   Shuping Peng
   Huawei Technologies
   Email: pengshuping@huawei.com

   Bhupendra Yadav
   Ciena
   Email: byadav@ciena.com

   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   Email: hayabusagsm@gmail.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="additional-contributors">
        <name>Additional Contributors</name>
        <t>The following individuals made contributions to this document:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Andrew Stone
   Nokia
   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com

   Chen Ran
   ZTE
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9256">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="K. Talaulikar" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Talaulikar"/>
            <author fullname="D. Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bogdanov" initials="A." surname="Bogdanov"/>
            <author fullname="P. Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9256"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9862">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor"/>
            <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="H. Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli"/>
            <date month="October" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of instructions called "segments" that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated. An SR Policy is made of one or more Candidate Paths.</t>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal Candidate Paths of an SR Policy. Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow delegation and setup of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP) without using the path computation request and reply messages. This document is applicable to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6).</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9862"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9862"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5511">
          <front>
            <title>Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="April" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Several protocols have been specified in the Routing Area of the IETF using a common variant of the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing message syntax. However, there is no formal definition of this version of BNF.</t>
              <t>There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and simplifies implementation.</t>
              <t>Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.</t>
              <t>This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that has been used (that we call Routing BNF) and makes it available for use by new protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5511"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5511"/>
        </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="RFC9863">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
            <author fullname="B. Rajagopalan" initials="B." surname="Rajagopalan"/>
            <author fullname="V. Beeram" initials="V." surname="Beeram"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="G. Mishra" initials="G." surname="Mishra"/>
            <date month="October" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Color is a 32-bit numerical (unsigned integer) attribute used to associate a Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent or objective. For example, a TE Tunnel constructed to deliver low latency services and whose path is optimized for delay can be tagged with a color that represents "low latency." This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry the color attribute.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9863"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9863"/>
        </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="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="RFC8253">
          <front>
            <title>PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="D. Lopez" initials="D." surname="Lopez"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
            <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
            <date month="October" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8253"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8253"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13">
          <front>
            <title>Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Sean Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner">
              <organization>sn3rd</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Russ Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley">
              <organization>Vigil Security, LLC</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="9" month="January" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment
   restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
   secure transport for PCEP (Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol).  This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS
   implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS
   protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-04"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9325">
          <front>
            <title>Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="P. Saint-Andre" initials="P." surname="Saint-Andre"/>
            <author fullname="T. Fossati" initials="T." surname="Fossati"/>
            <date month="November" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of application protocols and can also form the basis for secure transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.</t>
              <t>RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely available. This document updates the guidance given the new environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="195"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9325"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9325"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <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="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy">
          <front>
            <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Christian Schmutzer" initials="C." surname="Schmutzer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zafar Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Praveen Maheshwari" initials="P." surname="Maheshwari">
              <organization>Airtel India</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Reza Rokui" initials="R." surname="Rokui">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Andrew Stone" initials="A." surname="Stone">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="12" month="March" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for bandwidth, end-to-end recovery and
   persistent paths within a SR network.  The association of two co-
   routed unidirectional SR Policies satisfying these requirements is
   called "Circuit Style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy).

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-17"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy">
          <front>
            <title>PCEP extensions for SR P2MP Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Anuj Budhiraja" initials="A." surname="Budhiraja">
              <organization>Cisco System</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rishabh Parekh (editor)" initials="R." surname="Parekh">
              <organization>Arrcus</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="23" month="February" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are a set of
   policies that enable architecture for P2MP service delivery.  This
   document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute
   and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set of Leaf nodes.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-14"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7942">
          <front>
            <title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="July" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.</t>
              <t>This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="205"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7942"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7942"/>
        </reference>
        <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="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang">
          <front>
            <title>A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram" initials="V. P." surname="Beeram">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jonathan Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick">
         </author>
            <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
              <organization>Nvidia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="26" month="January" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the
   Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
