<?xml version="1.0" encoding="us-ascii"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[]>
<?rfc toc="yes" ?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes" ?>
<?rfc sortrefs="no"?>
<?rfc rfcedstyle="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<?rfc iprnotified="Yes" ?>
<?rfc strict="no" ?>
<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-04" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP-LS">PCEP Extension for Distribution of Link-State and TE Information.</title>

    <author initials="D" surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield</street>
          <city>Bangalore</city>
          <region>Karnataka</region>
          <code>560066</code>
          <country>India</country>
        </postal>
        <email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Young Lee" initials="Y" surname="Lee">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>5340 Legacy Drive, Building 3</street>
          <city>Plano</city>
          <region>TX</region>
          <code>75023</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>leeyoung@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="D" fullname="Daniele Ceccarelli" surname="Ceccarelli">
      <organization>Ericsson</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Torshamnsgatan,48</street>
          <city>Stockholm</city>
          <region></region>
          <code></code>
          <country>Sweden</country>
        </postal>
        <email>daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date month="July" year="2016" />
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
    <t>In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation
   Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED). Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link
   state (LS) routing protocol supporting traffic engineering extensions.</t>
   <t>This document  extends the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) with Link-State and TE Information. </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" toc="default">
    <t>In Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS
   (GMPLS), a Traffic Engineering Database (TED) is used in computing
   paths for connection oriented packet services and for circuits. The
   TED contains all relevant information that a Path Computation
   Element (PCE) needs to perform its computations. It is important
   that the TED be complete and accurate each time, the PCE performs a
   path computation.</t>

   <t>In MPLS and GMPLS, interior gateway routing protocols (IGPs) have
   been used to create and maintain a copy of the TED at each node
   running the IGP. One of the benefits of the PCE architecture
   <xref target="RFC4655"/> is the use of computationally more sophisticated path
   computation algorithms and the realization that these may need
   enhanced processing power not necessarily available at each node
   participating in an IGP.</t>

   <t>Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC4655"/> describes the potential load of the TED on
   a network node and proposes an architecture where the TED is
   maintained by the PCE rather than the network nodes. However, it
   does not describe how a PCE would obtain the information needed to
   populate its TED. PCE may construct its TED by participating in the
   IGP (<xref target="RFC3630"/>  and <xref target="RFC5305"/>  for MPLS-TE; <xref target="RFC4203"/>  and <xref target="RFC5307"/>
   for GMPLS). An alternative is offered by BGP-LS <xref target="RFC7752"/> .</t>


   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> describes a set of extensions to PCEP to provide
   stateful control.  A stateful PCE has access to not only the
   information carried by the network's Interior Gateway Protocol
   (IGP), but also the set of active paths and their reserved resources
   for its computations. PCC can delegate the rights to modify the LSP
   parameters to an Active Stateful PCE. This requires PCE to quickly
   be updated on any changes in the Topology and TEDB, so that PCE can
   meet the need for updating LSPs effectively and in a timely manner.
   The fastest way for a PCE to be updated on TED changes is via a
   direct interface with each network node and with incremental update
   from each network node with only the attribute that is modified.</t>

   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"/> describes the setup, maintenance and teardown of
   PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model, without the need
   for local configuration on the PCC, thus allowing for a dynamic
   network that is centrally controlled and deployed. This model
   requires timely topology and TED update at the PCE. </t>

   <t><xref target="I-D.leedhody-teas-pcep-ls"/> proposes some other approaches for learning and maintaining
   the Link-State and TE information directly on a PCE as an alternative to IGPs and BGP flooding
   and investigate the impact from the PCE, routing protocol, and node
   perspectives.</t>

   <t><xref target="RFC5440"/> describes the specifications for the Path Computation
   Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).  PCEP specifies the
   communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs based on the PCE
   architecture <xref target="RFC4655"/>.</t>

   <t>This document describes a mechanism by which Link State and TE
   information can be collected from networks and shared with PCE
   using the PCEP itself.  This is achieved using a new PCEP message format.
   The mechanism is applicable to physical and virtual links as well as
   further subjected to various policies.</t>


   <t>A network node maintains one or more databases for storing link-state
   and TE information about nodes and links in any given area.  Link attributes
   stored in these databases include: local/remote IP addresses, local/
   remote interface identifiers, link metric and TE metric, link
   bandwidth, reservable bandwidth, per CoS class reservation state,
   preemption and Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLG).  The node's PCEP
   process can retrieve topology from these databases and distribute
   it to a PCE, either directly or via another PCEP Speaker, using
   the encoding specified in this document.</t>

   <t>Further <xref target="RFC6805"/> describes Hierarchical-PCE architecture,
   where a parent PCE maintains a domain
   topology map. The child PCE MAY transport (abstract) Link-State and
   TE information from child PCE to a Parent PCE using the mechanism
   described in this document.</t>

   <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/> describe LSP
   state synchronization between PCCs and PCEs in case of stateful PCE. This
   document does not make any change to the LSP state synchronization process.
   The mechanism described in this document are on top of the existing LSP
   state synchronization.</t>

      <section title="Requirements Language" toc="default">
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL",
        "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
        and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
        described in <xref target="RFC2119"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Terminology" toc="default">
      <t>The terminology is as per <xref target="RFC4655"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Applicability" toc="default">

   <t>As per <xref target="I-D.leedhody-teas-pcep-ls"/>, the
   mechanism specified in this draft is applicable to:
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>Where there is no IGP or BGP-LS running in the network. </t>
   <t>Where there is no IGP or BGP-LS running at the PCE to learn link-state and TE information. </t>
   <t>Where there is IGP or BGP-LS running but with a need for a faster TE and link-state population and convergence at the PCE.
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>A PCE may receive partial information (say basic TE, link-state) from IGP and other information (optical and impairment) from PCEP.</t>
   <t>A PCE may receive an incremental update (as opposed to the entire information of the node/link).</t>
   <t>A PCE may receive full information from both existing mechanism (IGP or BGP) and PCEP.</t>
   </list>
   </t>
   <t>Where there is a need for transporting (abstract) Link-State
   and TE information from child PCE to a Parent PCE in H-PCE <xref target="RFC6805"/>;
   as well as for Physical Network Controller (PNC) to Multi-Domain Service Coordinator
   (MDSC) in Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"/>. 
   </t>
   </list>
   </t>
   <t>A PCC may further choose to send only local information or both local and remote learned information. </t>
   <t>How a PCE manages the link-state (and TE) information is implementation specific and thus out of scope of this document.</t>
   <t>The prefix information in PCEP-LS can also help in determining the domain of the endpoints in H-PCE (and ACTN).
   Section 4.5 of <xref target="RFC6805"/> describe various mechanism and procedures that might be used, PCEP-LS provides a simple mechanism
   to exchange this information. </t>
   

   </section>
    <section title="Requirements for PCEP extension" toc="default" anchor="sec_req">
    <t>Following key requirements associated with link-state (and TE) distribution are identified for PCEP:
    <list style="numbers">
    <t>The PCEP speaker supporting this draft MUST be a mechanism to advertise the Link-State (and TE) distribution capability.</t>
    <t>PCC supporting this draft MUST have the capability to report the link-state (and TE) information to
    the PCE. This includes self originated information and remote information
    learned via routing protocols. PCC MUST be capable to do the initial bulk sync at
    the time of session initialization as well as changes after.</t>

    <t>A PCE MAY learn link-state (and TE) from PCEP as well as from existing mechanism like
    IGP/BGP-LS. PCEP extension MUST have a mechanism to link the information
    learned via other means. There MUST NOT be any changes to the existing link-state (and TE)
    population mechanism
    via IGP/BGP-LS. PCEP extension SHOULD keep the properties in a
    protocol (IGP or BGP-LS) neutral way, such that an implementation
    may not need to know about any OSPF or IS-IS or BGP protocol specifics.</t>

    <t>It SHOULD be possible to encode only the changes in link-state (and TE) properties
    (after the initial sync) in PCEP messages.</t>

    <t>The same mechanism should be used for both MPLS TE as well as GMPLS,
    optical and impairment aware properties.</t>

    <t>The same mechanism should be used for PCE to PCE Link-state (and TE) synchronization.</t>

    <t>The extension in this draft SHOULD be extensible to support various
    architecture options listed in <xref target="I-D.leedhody-teas-pcep-ls"/>.</t>

    </list>
    </t>
    </section>

    <section title="New Functions to distribute link-state (and TE) via PCEP">
   <t>Several new functions are required in PCEP to support distribution
   of link-state (and TE) information. A function can be initiated
   either from a PCC towards a PCE (C-E) or from a PCE towards a PCC (E-C).
    The new functions are:
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>Capability advertisement (E-C,C-E): both the PCC and the PCE must announce during PCEP session establishment that they support PCEP extensions for distribution of link-state (and TE) information defined in this document.</t>

   <t>Link-State (and TE) synchronization (C-E): after the session between the PCC and a PCE is initialized, the PCE must learn Link-State (and TE) information before it can perform path computations.  In case of stateful PCE it is RECOMENDED that this operation be done before LSP state synchronization.</t>

   <t>Link-State (and TE) Report (C-E): a PCC sends a LS (and TE) report to a PCE whenever the Link-State and TE information changes.</t>
   </list> </t>
    </section>



    <section title="Overview of Extension to PCEP" toc="default" anchor="sec_overview">
     <section title="New Messages">
   <t>In this document, we define a new PCEP messages called LS Report (LSRpt),
      a PCEP message sent by a PCC
      to a PCE to report link-state (and TE) information.  Each LS Report in a LSRpt message can contain
      the node or link properties. An unique PCEP specific LS identifier (LS-ID) is
      also carried in the message to identify a node or link and that remains constant for the
      lifetime of a PCEP session. This identifier on its own is sufficient
      when no IGP or BGP-LS running in the network for PCE to learn link-state (and TE) information.
      Incase PCE learns some information from PCEP and some
      from the existing mechanism, the PCC SHOULD include the mapping of IGP or BGP-LS
      identifier to map the information populated via PCEP with IGP/BGP-LS.
      See <xref target="sec_lsrpt"/> for details.</t>

      </section>
     <section title="Capability Advertisement">
     <t>During PCEP Initialization Phase, PCEP Speakers (PCE or PCC)
   advertise their support of LS (and TE) distribution via PCEP extensions.  A PCEP Speaker
   includes the "LS Capability" TLV, described in <xref target="sec_ls_tlv"/>,
   in the OPEN Object to advertise its support for PCEP-LS extensions.
   The presence of the LS Capability TLV in PCC's OPEN Object
   indicates that the PCC is willing to send LS Reports whenever
   local link-state (and TE) information changes. The presence of the
   LS Capability TLV in PCE's OPEN message
   indicates that the PCE is interested in receiving LS Reports
   whenever local link-state (and TE) information changes.</t>
   <t>The PCEP protocol extensions for LS (and TE) distribution MUST NOT be used if
   one or both PCEP Speakers have not included the LS
   Capability TLV in their respective OPEN message. If the PCE that
   supports the extensions of this draft but did not advertise this
   capability, then upon receipt of a LSRpt message from the PCC, it
   SHOULD generate a PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation),
   error-value TBD1 (Attempted LS Report if LS
   capability was not advertised) and it will
   terminate the PCEP session.</t>
   <t>The LS reports sent by PCC MAY carry the remote link-state (and TE) information
   learned via existing means like IGP and BGP-LS
   only if both PCEP Speakers set the R (remote) Flag in the
   "LS Capability" TLV to 'Remote Allowed (R Flag = 1)'.  If this
   is not the case and LS reports carry remote link-state (and TE) information, then a
   PCErr with error-type 19 (Invalid Operation) and
   error-value TBD1 (Attempted LS Report if LS
   remote capability was not advertised) and it will
   terminate the PCEP session.</t>

      </section>
     <section title="Initial Link-State (and TE) Synchronization">
     <t>The purpose of LS Synchronization is to provide a checkpoint-in-
   time state replica of a PCC's link-state (and TE) data base in a PCE. State
   Synchronization is performed immediately after the Initialization
   phase (see <xref target="RFC5440"/>]). In case of stateful PCE
   (<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"/>)
   it is RECOMENDED that the LS synchronization should be done
   before LSP state synchronization.</t>

   <t>During LS Synchronization, a PCC first takes a snapshot of the
   state of its database, then sends the snapshot to a PCE in a
   sequence of LS Reports.  Each LS Report sent during
   LS Synchronization has the SYNC Flag in the LS Object set to 1.
   The end of synchronization marker is a LSRpt message with the SYNC
   Flag set to 0 for an LS Object with LS-ID equal to the reserved
   value 0. If the
   PCC has no link-state to synchronize, it will only send the end of
   synchronization marker.</t>

   <t>Either the PCE or the PCC MAY terminate the session using the PCEP
   session termination procedures during the synchronization phase.  If
   the session is terminated, the PCE MUST clean up state it received
   from this PCC.  The session re-establishment MUST be re-attempted per
   the procedures defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, including use of a back-off
   timer.</t>

   <t>If the PCC encounters a problem which prevents it from completing the
   LS synchronization, it MUST send a PCErr message with error-type TBD2 (LS
   Synchronization Error) and error-value 2 (indicating an
   internal PCC error) to the PCE and terminate the session.</t>

   <t>The PCE does not send positive acknowledgements for properly received
   LS synchronization messages.  It MUST respond with a PCErr message with
   error-type TBD2 (LS Synchronization Error) and error-value 1
   (indicating an error in processing the LSRpt) if it
   encounters a problem with the LS Report it received from the
   PCC and it MUST terminate the session.</t>

   <t>The LS reports can carry local as well as remote link-state (and TE) information depending on the R flag in LS capability
      TLV.</t>

   <t>The successful LS Synchronization sequences is shown in <xref target="F1"/>.</t>
             <figure title="Successful LS synchronization"
             suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" anchor="F1">
            <artwork><![CDATA[

      +-+-+                    +-+-+
      |PCC|                    |PCE|
      +-+-+                    +-+-+
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->| (Sync start)
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=0----->| (End of sync marker
        |                        |  LS Report
        |                        |  for LS-ID=0)
        |                        | (Sync done)

]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The sequence where the PCE fails during the LS Synchronization
   phase is shown in <xref target="F2"/>.</t>
             <figure title="Failed LS synchronization (PCE failure)"
             suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" anchor="F2">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
      +-+-+                    +-+-+
      |PCC|                    |PCE|
      +-+-+                    +-+-+
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |                        |
        |---LSRpt,SYNC=1         |
        |         \    ,-PCErr---|
        |          \  /          |
        |           \/           |
        |           /\           |
        |          /   `-------->| (Ignored)
        |<--------`              |

]]></artwork>
          </figure>

   <t>The sequence where the PCC fails during the LS Synchronization
   phase is shown in <xref target="F3"/>.</t>
             <figure title="Failed LS synchronization (PCC failure)"
             suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" anchor="F3">
            <artwork><![CDATA[
      +-+-+                    +-+-+
      |PCC|                    |PCE|
      +-+-+                    +-+-+
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |                        |
        |-----LSRpt, SYNC=1----->|
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |            .           |
        |-------- PCErr--------->|
        |                        |

      ]]></artwork>
                </figure>
           <section title="Optimizations for LS Synchronization">
           <t>These optimizations are described in <xref target="I-D.kondreddy-pce-pcep-ls-sync-optimizations"/>.</t>
            </section>
            </section>
      <section title="LS Report">
      <t>The PCC MUST report any changes in the link-state (and TE) information to the PCE by sending a
      LS Report carried on a LSRpt message to the PCE.
      Each node and Link would be uniquely identified by a
      PCEP LS identifier (LS-ID). The LS reports may carry local as well as
      remote link-state (and TE) information depending on the R flag in LS capability
      TLV.
      In case R flag is set, It MAY also include the mapping of IGP or BGP-LS
      identifier to map the information populated via PCEP with IGP/BGP-LS.</t>
      <t>More details about LSRpt message are in <xref target="sec_lsrpt"/>.</t>
      </section>
      </section>
      <section title="Transport" toc="default">
      <t>A permanent PCEP session MUST be established between a PCE
   and PCC supporting link-state (and TE) distribution via PCEP. In the case of session failure,
   session re-establishment
   MUST be re-attempted per the procedures defined in
   <xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="PCEP Messages" toc="default" anchor="sec_msg">
      <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, a PCEP message consists of a common header
   followed by a variable-length body made of a set of objects that can
   be either mandatory or optional.  An object is said to be mandatory
   in a PCEP message when the object must be included for the message to
   be considered valid.  For each PCEP message type, a set of rules is
   defined that specify the set of objects that the message can carry.
   An implementation MUST form the PCEP messages using the object
   ordering specified in this document.</t>
      <section title="LS Report Message" anchor="sec_lsrpt">
      <t>A PCEP LS Report message (also referred to as
   LSRpt message) is a PCEP message sent by a PCC to a PCE to report the
   link-state (and TE) information.  A LSRpt message can carry more than one LS
   Reports.  The Message-Type field of the PCEP common header
   for the LSRpt message is set to [TBD3].</t>

   <t>The format of the LSRpt message is as follows:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork><![CDATA[
<LSRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <ls-report-list>
Where:

<ls-report-list> ::= <LS>[<ls-report-list>]

            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
      <t>The LS object is a mandatory object which carries LS information of
      a node or a link. Each LS object has an unique LS-ID as described
      in <xref target="sec_ls_obj"/>. If the LS
   object is missing, the receiving PCE MUST send a PCErr message with
   Error-type=6 (Mandatory Object missing) and Error-value=[TBD4] (LS
   object missing).</t>
      <t>A PCE may choose to implement a limit on the LS information a single PCC
   can populate.  If a LSRpt is received that causes the PCE to exceed
   this limit, it MUST send a PCErr message with error-type 19 (invalid
   operation) and error-value 4 (indicating resource limit exceeded) in
   response to the LSRpt message triggering this condition and SHOULD
   terminate the session.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="The PCErr Message" anchor="sec_pcerr">
      <t>If a PCEP speaker has advertised the LS capability on the PCEP
   session, the PCErr message MAY include the LS object.  If the error
   reported is the result of an LS report, then the LS-ID
   number MUST be the one from the LSRpt that triggered the error.</t>
   <t>The format of a PCErr message from <xref target="RFC5440"/> is
   extended as follows:</t>
   <t>The format of the PCErr message is as follows:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCErr Message> ::= <Common Header>
                  ( <error-obj-list> [<Open>] ) | <error>
                  [<error-list>]

<error-obj-list>::=<PCEP-ERROR>[<error-obj-list>]

<error>::=[<request-id-list> | <ls-id-list>]
           <error-obj-list>

<request-id-list>::=<RP>[<request-id-list>]

<ls-id-list>::=<LS>[<ls-id-list>]

<error-list>::=<error>[<error-list>]
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
      </section>
      </section>
      <section title="Objects and TLV" toc="default" anchor="sec_obj">
      <t>The PCEP objects defined in this document are compliant with the PCEP
   object format defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>.  The P flag and the I flag of the
   PCEP objects defined in this document MUST always be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt since these flags are
   exclusively related to path computation requests.</t>
      <section title="Open Object">
      <t>This document defines a new optional TLV for use in the OPEN
   Object.</t>
   <section title="LS Capability TLV" anchor="sec_ls_tlv">
   <t>The LS-CAPABILITY TLV is an optional TLV for use in the
   OPEN Object for link-state (and TE) distribution via PCEP capability
   advertisement.  Its format is shown in the following figure:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <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=[TBD5]     |            Length=4           |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                             Flags                           |R|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The type of the TLV is [TBD5] and it has a fixed length of 4 octets.</t>

   <t>The value comprises a single field - Flags (32 bits):
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>R (remote - 1 bit): if set to 1 by a PCC, the R Flag
      indicates that the PCC allows reporting of remote LS information
      learned via other means like IGP and BGP-LS; if
      set to 1 by a PCE, the R Flag indicates that the PCE is capable of
      receiving remote LS information (from the PCC point of view).
      The R Flag must be
      advertised by both a PCC and a PCE for LSRpt messages to report
      remote as well as local LS information on a PCEP session. The
      TLVs related to IGP/BGP-LS identifier MUST be encoded when
      both PCEP speakers have the R Flag set.</t>
   </list>
   </t>
   <t>Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

   <t>Advertisement of the LS capability implies support of local link-state (and TE)
   distribution, as well as the objects, TLVs and
   procedures defined in this document.</t>
   </section>
      </section>
      <section title="LS Object" anchor="sec_ls_obj">
      <t>The LS (link-state) object MUST be carried
   within LSRpt messages and MAY be carried within PCErr
   messages.  The LS object contains a set of fields used to specify
   the target node or link. It also
   contains a flag indicating to a PCE that the LS
   synchronization is in progress. The TLVs used with the LS object
   correlate with the IGP/BGP-LS encodings.</t>

   <t>LS Object-Class is [TBD6].</t>

   <t>Four Object-Type values are defined for the LS object so far:
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>LS Node: LS Object-Type is 1. </t>

   <t>LS Link: LS Object-Type is 2.</t>

   <t>LS IPv4 Topology Prefix: LS Object-Type is 3.</t>

   <t>LS IPv6 Topology Prefix: LS Object-Type is 4.</t>
   </list>
   </t>
   <t>The format of all types of LS object is as follows:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Protocol-ID  |          Flag                             |R|S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                          LS-ID                                |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
//                         TLVs                                //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
     <t>Protocol-ID (8-bit): The field provide the source information.
     Incase PCC only provides local information (R flag is not set),
     it MUST use Protocol-ID
     as Direct. The following values are defined (same as
     <xref target="RFC7752"/>):</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+-------------+----------------------------------+
| Protocol-ID | Source protocol                  |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
|      1      | IS-IS Level 1                    |
|      2      | IS-IS Level 2                    |
|      3      | OSPFv2                           |
|      4      | Direct                           |
|      5      | Static configuration             |
|      6      | OSPFv3                           |
|      7      | BGP-LS                           |
+-------------+----------------------------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
     <t>Flags (24-bit):
     <list style="symbols">
     <t>S (SYNC - 1 bit):  the S Flag MUST be set to 1 on each LSRpt sent
      from a PCC during LS Synchronization.  The S Flag MUST be set
      to 0 in other LSRpt messages sent from the PCC.</t>
     <t>R (Remove - 1 bit):  On LSRpt messages the R Flag indicates that the
      node/link/prefix has been removed from the PCC and the PCE SHOULD remove
      from its database.  Upon receiving an LS Report with
      the R Flag set to 1, the PCE SHOULD
      remove all state for the node/link/prefix identified by the LS Identifiers
      from its database.</t>
     </list>
     </t>
     <t>LS-ID(64-bit): A PCEP-specific identifier for the node or
     link or prefix information.  A PCC creates an unique LS-ID for
     each node/link/prefix that is
     constant for the lifetime of a PCEP session.  The PCC will
     advertise the same LS-ID on all PCEP sessions it maintains at a
     given times.  All
   subsequent PCEP messages then address the node/link/prefix by the LS-ID.
   The
   values of 0 and 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF are reserved.</t>
   <t>Unassigned bits are considered reserved.  They MUST be set to 0 on
   transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

   <t>TLVs that may be included in the LS Object are described in the
   following sections.</t>
   <section title="Routing Universe TLV">
   <t>In case of remote link-state (and TE) population when existing IGP/BGP-LS are
   also used, OSPF and IS-IS may run multiple routing protocol instances over
   the same link as described in <xref target="RFC7752"/>.
   See <xref target="RFC6822"/> and <xref target="RFC6549"/> for more information.
   These instances define
   independent "routing universes".  The 64-Bit 'Identifier' field is
   used to identify the "routing universe" where the LS object belongs.
   The
   LS objects representing IGP objects (nodes or links or prefix) from the
   same routing universe MUST have the same 'Identifier' value; LS objects
   with different 'Identifier' values MUST be considered to be from
   different routing universes. </t>
   <t>The format of the optional ROUTING-UNIVERSE TLV is shown in the following
   figure:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD7]         |           Length=8            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                           Identifier                          |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>Below table lists the 'Identifier'
   values that are defined as well-known in this draft (same as
     <xref target="RFC7752"/>).</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+------------+-----------------------------------+
| Identifier | Routing Universe                  |
+------------+-----------------------------------+
|     0      | Default Layer 3 Routing topology  |
|    1-31    | Reserved                          |
+------------+-----------------------------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>If this TLV is not present the default value 0 is assumed.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Route Distinguisher TLV">
   <t>Tho allow identification of VPN link, node and prefix information 
   in PCEP-LS, a Route Distinguisher (RD) <xref target="RFC4364"/> is used.
   The 
   LS objects from the
   same VPN MUST have the same RD; LS objects
   with different RD values MUST be considered to be from
   different VPNs. </t>
   <t>The format of the optional ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER TLV is shown in the following
   figure:
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD15]        |           Length=8            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                     Route Distinguisher                       |
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>   
    </t>
    <t>The format of RD is as per <xref target="RFC4364"/>.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Virtual Network TLV">
    <t>To realize ACTN, the MDSC needs to build an multi-domain topology.
    This topology is best served, if this is an abstracted view of the 
    underlying network resources of each domain. It is also important 
    to provide a customer view of network slice for each customer.
    There is a need to control the level of abstraction based on 
   the deployment scenario and business relationship between the controllers. 
   </t>   
   <t>Virtual service coordination function in ACTN incorporates customer
   service-related knowledge into the virtual network operations in
   order to seamlessly operate virtual networks while meeting customer's
   service requirements. <xref target="I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements"/> describes various VN operations
   initiated by a customer/application. In this context, there is a
   need for associating the abstracted link state and TE topology with a VN "construct" to
   facilitate VN operations in PCE architecture.</t>
   <t>VIRTUAL-NETWORK-TLV as per <xref target="I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"/> 
   can be included in LS object to identify the link, node and prefix information
   belongs to a particular VN.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Local Node Descriptors TLV">
   <t>As described in <xref target="RFC7752"/>,
   each link is anchored by a pair of Router-IDs that are used by the
   underlying IGP, namely, 48 Bit ISO System-ID for IS-IS and 32 bit
   Router-ID for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.  Incase of additional auxiliary
   Router-IDs used for TE, these MUST also be included in the link
   attribute TLV (see <xref target="link_attr"/>).</t>

   <t>It is desirable that the Router-ID assignments inside the Node
   Descriptor are globally unique. Some considerations for globally
   unique Node/Link/Prefix identifiers are described in
   <xref target="RFC7752"/>.</t>

   <t>The Local Node Descriptors TLV contains Node Descriptors for the node
   anchoring the local end of the link.  This TLV MUST be included in the LS Report
   when during a given PCEP session a node/link/prefix is first reported to a PCE.
   A PCC sends to a PCE the first LS Report either during State
   Synchronization, or when a new node/link/prefix is learned at the PCC.
   The value
   contains one or more Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs, which
   allows specification of a flexible key for any given node/link/prefix
   information such that global uniqueness of the node/link/prefix is ensured.</t>
   <t>This TLV is applicable for all LS Object-Type.</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD8]         |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//              Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The value contains
   one or more Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in
   <xref target="node_subtlv"/>.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Remote Node Descriptors TLV">
   <t>The Remote Node Descriptors contains Node Descriptors for the node
   anchoring the remote end of the link.  This TLV MUST be included in the LS Report
   when during a given PCEP session a link is first reported to a PCE.
   A PCC sends to a PCE the first LS Report either during State
   Synchronization, or when a new link is learned at the PCC. The length of this TLV is
   variable.  The value contains
   one or more Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined in <xref target="node_subtlv"/>.</t>
   <t>This TLV is applicable for LS Link Object-Type.</t>
<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD9]         |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//              Node Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   </section>
   <section title="Node Descriptors Sub-TLVs" anchor="node_subtlv">
   <t>The Node Descriptor Sub-TLV type Type and lengths are listed in
   the following table:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
| Sub-TLV            | Description       |   Length |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
|        0           | Reserved          |        - |
|        1           | Autonomous System |        4 |
|        2           | BGP-LS Identifier |        4 |
|        3           | OSPF Area-ID      |        4 |
|        4           | IGP Router-ID     | Variable |
|        5           | Multi-Topology-ID | Variable |
+--------------------+-------------------+----------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

   <t>The sub-TLV values in Node Descriptor TLVs are defined
   as follows (similar to <xref target="RFC7752"/>):
   <list style="symbols">
   <t>Autonomous System:  opaque value (32 Bit AS Number)</t>
   <t>BGP-LS Identifier:  opaque value (32 Bit ID).  In conjunction with
      ASN, uniquely identifies the BGP-LS domain as described in <xref target="RFC7752"/>.
      This sub-TLV is present only if the node implements BGP-LS and the ID is set by the operator.
</t>

   <t>OSPF Area ID:  It is used to identify the 32 Bit area to which the LS object
      belongs.  Area Identifier allows the different LS objects of the same
      node to be discriminated.</t>

   <t>IGP Router ID:  opaque value.  Usage is
      described in <xref target="RFC7752"/> for IGP Router ID. In case only
      local information is transported and PCE learns link-state (and TE) information only from PCEP, it contain the unique local TE IPv4 or IPv6 router ID.</t>

   <t>Multi-Topology-ID: Usage is described in <xref target="RFC7752"/> for MT-ID.</t>

      <t>There can be at most one instance of each sub-TLV type present in
      any Node Descriptor.</t>


      </list>
      </t>
   </section>
   <section title="Multi-Topology ID TLV">
   <t>The Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) TLV carries one or more IS-IS or OSPF
   Multi-Topology IDs for a link, node or prefix. The semantics of the
   IS-IS MT-ID are defined in Section 7.2 of <xref target="RFC5120"/>.
   The MT-ID TLV MAY be present in a Link Descriptor, a Prefix
   Descriptor, or in the attribute of a node (Node Attributes TLV) in LS object. </t>


   <t>The format and handling of the MT-ID TLV is as defined in <xref target="RFC7752"/>.</t>


   <t>In a Link or
   Prefix Descriptor, only a single MT-ID TLV containing the MT-ID of
   the topology where the link or the prefix is reachable is allowed.
   In case one wants to advertise multiple topologies for a given Link
   Descriptor or Prefix Descriptor, multiple reports need to be generated
   where each LS object contains an unique MT-ID. In the attribute of
   a node (Node Attributes TLV) in LS object, one MT-ID TLV containing the array of MT-IDs of all
   topologies where the node is reachable is allowed.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Link Descriptors TLV">
   <t>The Link Descriptors TLV contains Link Descriptors for each link.
   This TLV MUST be included in the LS Report
   when during a given PCEP session a link is first reported to a PCE.
   A PCC sends to a PCE the first LS Report either during State
   Synchronization, or when a new link is learned at the PCC.  The length of this
   TLV is variable. The value contains one or more Link Descriptor Sub-TLVs.</t>

   <t>The 'Link descriptor' TLVs uniquely identify a link among
    multiple parallel
   links between a pair of anchor routers similar to
   <xref target="RFC7752"/>. </t>
   <t>This TLV is applicable for LS Link Object-Type.</t>
<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD10]        |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//              Link Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The Link Descriptor Sub-TLV type and lengths are listed in
   the following table:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|  Sub-TLV  | Description         |   IS-IS TLV   | Value defined   |
|           |                     |    /Sub-TLV   | in:             |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|    6      | Link Local/Remote   |      22/4     | [RFC5307]/1.1   |
|           | Identifiers         |               |                 |
|    7      | IPv4 interface      |      22/6     | [RFC5305]/3.2   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    8      | IPv4 neighbor       |      22/8     | [RFC5305]/3.3   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    9      | IPv6 interface      |     22/12     | [RFC6119]/4.2   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    10     | IPv6 neighbor       |     22/13     | [RFC6119]/4.3   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    5      | Multi-Topology      |       -       | [RFC7752]/      |
|           | identifier          |               | 3.2.1.5         |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
<t>The format and semantics of the 'value' fields in most 'Link
   Descriptor' sub-TLVs correspond to the format and semantics of value
   fields in IS-IS Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in
   <xref target="RFC5305"/>, <xref target="RFC5307"/> and <xref target="RFC6119"/>.  Although the encodings for 'Link
   Descriptor' TLVs were originally defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can
   carry data sourced either by IS-IS or OSPF or direct.</t>
   <t>The information about a link present in the LSA/LSP originated by the
   local node of the link determines the set of sub-TLVs in the Link
   Descriptor of the link as described in
   <xref target="RFC7752"/>.</t>
   </section>
   <section title="Prefix Descriptors TLV">
<t>The Prefix Descriptors TLV contains Prefix Descriptors uniquely identify an IPv4 or IPv6
   Prefix originated by a Node.  This TLV MUST be included in the LS Report
   when during a given PCEP session a prefix is first reported to a PCE.
   A PCC sends to a PCE the first LS Report either during State
   Synchronization, or when a new prefix is learned at the PCC. The length of this TLV is
   variable.  </t>
   <t>This TLV is applicable for LS Prefix Object-Types for both IPv4 and IPv6.</t>
<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD11]        |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//             Prefix Descriptor Sub-TLVs (variable)           //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

   <t>The value contains
   one or more Prefix Descriptor Sub-TLVs defined below - </t>

             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[

+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
|   TLV Code   | Description           |  Length  | Value defined   |
|    Point     |                       |          | in:             |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
|   5          | Multi-Topology        | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              | Identifier            |          | /3.2.1.5        |
|   11         | OSPF Route Type       |    1     | [RFC7752]       |
|              |                       |          | /3.2.3.1        |
|   12         | IP Reachability       | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              | Information           |          | /3.2.3.2        |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   </section>
   <section title="PCEP-LS Attributes">
   <section title="Node Attributes TLV" anchor="node_attr">
<t>This is an optional attribute that is used to
   carry node attributes. This TLV is applicable for LS Node Object-Type.</t>
<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD12]        |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//              Node Attributes Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The Node Attributes Sub-TLV type and lengths are listed in
   the following table:</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
|   Sub TLV    | Description           |   Length | Value defined   |
|              |                       |          | in:             |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
|     5        | Multi-Topology        | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              | Identifier            |          | /3.2.1.5        |
|     13       | Node Flag Bits        |        1 | [RFC7752]       |
|              |                       |          | /3.3.1.1        |
|     14       | Opaque Node           | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              | Properties            |          | /3.3.1.5        |
|     15       | Node Name             | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              |                       |          | /3.3.1.3        |
|     16       | IS-IS Area Identifier | variable | [RFC7752]       |
|              |                       |          | /3.3.1.2        |
|     17       | IPv4 Router-ID of     |        4 | [RFC5305]/4.3   |
|              | Local Node            |          |                 |
|     18       | IPv6 Router-ID of     |       16 | [RFC6119]/4.1   |
|              | Local Node            |          |                 |
+--------------+-----------------------+----------+-----------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>

      </section>
   <section title="Link Attributes TLV" anchor="link_attr">
   <t>This TLV is applicable for LS Link Object-Type. The format
   and semantics of the 'value' fields in some 'Link Attribute' sub-TLVs
   correspond to the format and semantics of value fields in IS-IS
   Extended IS Reachability sub-TLVs, defined in <xref target="RFC5305"/>,
   <xref target="RFC5307"/> and <xref target="RFC7752"/>.
   Although the encodings for 'Link Attribute' TLVs were originally
   defined for IS-IS, the TLVs can carry data sourced either by IS-IS or
   OSPF or direct.</t>
<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD13]        |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//              Link Attributes Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   <t>The following 'Link Attribute' sub-TLVs are valid :</t>
             <figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
|  Sub-TLV  | Description         |  IS-IS TLV   | Defined in:      |
|           |                     |   /Sub-TLV   |                  |
|           |                     |  BGP-LS TLV  |                  |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
|    17     | IPv4 Router-ID of   |   134/---    | [RFC5305]/4.3    |
|           | Local Node          |              |                  |
|    18     | IPv6 Router-ID of   |   140/---    | [RFC6119]/4.1    |
|           | Local Node          |              |                  |
|    19     | IPv4 Router-ID of   |   134/---    | [RFC5305]/4.3    |
|           | Remote Node         |              |                  |
|    20     | IPv6 Router-ID of   |   140/---    | [RFC6119]/4.1    |
|           | Remote Node         |              |                  |
|    21     | Link Local/Remote   |     22/4     | [RFC5307]/1.1    |
|           | Identifiers         |              |                  |
|    22     | Administrative      |     22/3     | [RFC5305]/3.1    |
|           | group (color)       |              |                  |
|    23     | Maximum link        |     22/9     | [RFC5305]/3.3    |
|           | bandwidth           |              |                  |
|    24     | Max. reservable     |    22/10     | [RFC5305]/3.5    |
|           | link bandwidth      |              |                  |
|    25     | Unreserved          |    22/11     | [RFC5305]/3.6    |
|           | bandwidth           |              |                  |
|    26     | TE Default Metric   |    22/18     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.2.3         |
|    27     | Link Protection     |    22/20     | [RFC5307]/1.2    |
|           | Type                |              |                  |
|    28     | MPLS Protocol Mask  |     1094     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.2.2         |
|    29     | IGP Metric          |     1095     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.2.4         |
|    30     | Shared Risk Link    |     1096     | [RFC7752]        |
|           | Group               |              | /3.3.2.5         |
|    31     | Opaque link         |     1097     | [RFC7752]        |
|           | attributes          |              | /3.3.2.6         |
|    32     | Link Name attribute |     1098     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.2.7         |
|    33     | Unidirectional      |     22/33    | [RFC7810]/4.1    |
|           | Link Delay          |              |                  |
|    34     | Min/Max             |     22/34    | [RFC7810]/4.2    |
|           | Unidirectional Link |              |                  |
|           | Delay               |              |                  |
|    35     | Unidirectional      |     22/35    | [RFC7810]/4.3    |
|           | Delay Variation     |              |                  |
|    36     | Unidirectional      |     22/36    | [RFC7810]/4.4    |
|           | Link Loss           |              |                  |
|    37     | Unidirectional      |     22/37    | [RFC7810]/4.5    |
|           | Residual Bandwidth  |              |                  |
|    38     | Unidirectional      |     22/38    | [RFC7810]/4.6    |
|           | Available Bandwidth |              |                  |
|    39     | Unidirectional      |     22/39    | [RFC7810]/4.7    |
|           | Bandwidth           |              |                  |
|           | Utilization         |              |                  |
|    40     | Extended Admin      |     22/14    | [RFC7308]/2.1    |
|           | Group (EAG)         |              |                  |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
      </section>
      <section title="Prefix Attributes TLV" >
   <t>This TLV is applicable for LS Prefix Object-Types for both IPv4 and IPv6.
   Prefixes are learned from the IGP (IS-IS or OSPF) or BGP topology with a set
   of IGP attributes (such as metric, route tags, etc.). This section describes the
   different attributes related to the IPv4/IPv6 prefixes.  Prefix
   Attributes TLVs SHOULD be encoded in the LS Prefix Object.

<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![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=[TBD14]        |             Length            |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                                                               |
//            Prefix Attributes Sub-TLVs (variable)            //
|                                                               |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure>
   The following 'Prefix Attribute' sub-TLVs are valid :

<figure title=""
             suppress-title="true" align="center" alt="" width="" height="" >
            <artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
|  Sub-TLV  | Description         |  BGP-LS TLV  | Defined in:      |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
|    41     | IGP Flags           |     1152     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.3.1         |
|    42     | Route Tag           |     1153     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.3.2         |
|    43     | Extended Tag        |     1154     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.3.3         |
|    44     | Prefix Metric       |     1155     | [RFC7752]        |
|           |                     |              | /3.3.3.4         |
|    45     | OSPF Forwarding     |     1156     | [RFC7752]        |
|           | Address             |              | /3.3.3.5         |
|    46     | Opaque Prefix       |     1157     | [RFC7752]        |
|           | Attribute           |              | /3.3.3.6         |
+-----------+---------------------+--------------+------------------+
            ]]></artwork>
          </figure> </t>
      </section>
      </section>
      <section title="Removal of an Attribute" toc="default">
      <t>One of a key objective of PCEP-LS is to encode
      and carry only the impacted attributes of a Node, a Link or a Prefix. 
      To accommodate this requirement, incase of a removal of an attribute,
      the sub-TLV MUST be included with no 'value' field and length=0 
      to indicate that the attribute is removed. On receiving a sub-TLV
      with zero length, the receiver removes the attribute from the database.</t>
      </section>
      </section>
      </section>





    <section title="Other Considerations" toc="default">
    <section title="Inter-AS Links" toc="default">

   <t>The main source of LS (and TE) information is the IGP, which is not active on
   inter-AS links.  In some cases, the IGP may have information of
   inter-AS links (<xref target="RFC5392"/>, <xref target="RFC5316"/>).  In other cases, an
   implementation SHOULD provide a means to inject inter-AS links into
   PCEP.  The exact mechanism used to provision the inter-AS links is
   outside the scope of this document.</t>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Processing Rules" toc="default">
    </section>
    <section title="Security Considerations" toc="default">
      <t>This document extends PCEP for LS (and TE) distribution including a new
      LSRpt message with new object and TLVs. Procedures and protocol extensions
      defined in this document do not effect the overall PCEP security model.
      See <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps"/>.
      Tampering with the LSRpt message
      may have an effect on path computations at PCE. It also provides adversaries
      an opportunity to eavesdrop and learn sensitive information and plan
      sophisticated attacks on the network infrastructure. The PCE implementation
      SHOULD provide mechanisms to prevent strains created by network flaps and
      amount of LS (and TE) information. Thus it is suggested
      that any mechanism used for securing the transmission of other PCEP
      message be applied here as well. As a general precaution, it is
      RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions only be activated on
      authenticated and encrypted sessions belonging to the same
      administrative authority.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Manageability Considerations" toc="default">
      <section title="Control of Function and Policy" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Information and Data Models" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Liveness Detection and Monitoring" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Verify Correct Operations" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Requirements On Other Protocols" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Impact On Network Operations" toc="default">
        <t>TBD.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section title="IANA Considerations" toc="default">
<t>   This document requests IANA actions to allocate code points for the
   protocol elements defined in this document.</t>
<section title="PCEP Messages">
<t> IANA created a registry for PCEP messages.  Each PCEP message has a
   message type value. This document defines a new PCEP message value.</t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Value     Meaning                          Reference
 TBD3     LSRpt                            [This I-D]
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
</section>
<section title="PCEP Objects">
<t>This document defines the following new PCEP Object-classes and
Object-values:</t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Object-Class Value  Name                    Reference
     TBD6           LS Object               [This I-D]
                    Object-Type=1
                    (LS Node)
                    Object-Type=2
                    (LS Link)
                    Object-Type=3
                    (LS IPv4 Prefix)
                    Object-Type=4
                    (LS IPv6 Prefix)
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
</section>
<section title="LS Object">
<t>This document requests that a new sub-registry, named "LS Object
   Protocol-ID Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the LSP
   object. New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
   </t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Value       Meaning                        Reference
1           IS-IS Level 1                  [This I-D]
2           IS-IS Level 2                  [This I-D]  
3           OSPFv2                         [This I-D]
4           Direct                         [This I-D]
5           Static configuration           [This I-D]
6           OSPFv3                         [This I-D]
7           BGP-LS                         [This I-D]

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>   
   
<t>Further, this document also requests that a new sub-registry, named "LS Object
   Flag Field", is created within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry to manage the Flag field of the LSP
   object.New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC5226"/>.
   Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
<list style="symbols">
   <t>Bit number (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit)</t>

   <t>Capability description</t>

   <t>Defining RFC</t>
</list></t>
   <t>The following values are defined in this document:</t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Bit     Description           Reference
0-21    Unassigned
22      R (Remove bit)        [This I-D]
23      S (Sync bit)          [This I-D]
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
      
      
</section>

<section title="PCEP-Error Object">

   <t>IANA is requested to make the following allocation in the "PCEP-ERROR
   Object Error Types and Values" registry.</t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Error-Type Meaning                        Reference
6          Mandatory Object missing       [RFC5440]
           Error-Value=TBD4               [This I-D]
           (LS object missing)

19         Invalid Operation              [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
           Error-Value=TBD1               [This I-D]
           (Attempted LS Report if LS
           remote capability was not
           advertised)

TBD2       LS Synchronization Error       [This I-D]
           Error-Value=1
           (An error in processing the
           LSRpt)
           Error-Value=2
           (An internal PCC error)


]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="PCEP TLV Type Indicators">
   <t>This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs.</t>
   <t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Value     Meaning                        Reference
 TBD5     LS-CAPABILITY TLV              [This I-D]
 TBD7     ROUTING-UNIVERSE TLV           [This I-D]
 TBD15    ROUTE-DISTINGUISHER TLV        [This I-D]
 TBD8     Local Node Descriptors TLV     [This I-D]
 TBD9     Remote Node Descriptors TLV    [This I-D]
 TBD10    Link Descriptors TLV           [This I-D]
 TBD11    Prefix Descriptors TLV         [This I-D]
 TBD12    Node Attributes TLV            [This I-D]
 TBD13    Link Attributes TLV            [This I-D]
 TBD14    Prefix Attributes TLV          [This I-D]
                     
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
    </section>
    <section title="PCEP-LS Sub-TLV Type Indicators" anchor="subtlv">
   <t>This document specifies the PCEP-LS Sub-TLVs.  IANA
   is requested to create an "PCEP-LS Sub-TLV Types"
   sub-registry in the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" for the sub-TLVs
   carried in the PCEP-LS TLV (Local and Remote Node Descriptors TLV,
   Link Descriptors TLV, Prefix Descriptors TLV, Node Attributes TLV,
   Link Attributes TLV and Prefix Attributes TLV.  This document defines
   the following types: </t>
<t>
        <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|  Sub-TLV  | Description         |     Ref       | Value defined   |
|           |                     |     Sub-TLV   | in:             |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|    1      | Autonomous System   |      512      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.1.4        |
|    2      | BGP-LS Identifier   |      513      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.1.4        |
|    3      | OSPF Area-ID        |      514      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.1.4        |
|    4      | IGP Router-ID       |      515      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.1.4        |
|    5      | Multi-Topology-ID   |      263      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.1.5        |
|    6      | Link Local/Remote   |      22/4     | [RFC5307]/1.1   |
|           | Identifiers         |               |                 |
|    7      | IPv4 interface      |      22/6     | [RFC5305]/3.2   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    8      | IPv4 neighbor       |      22/8     | [RFC5305]/3.3   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    9      | IPv6 interface      |     22/12     | [RFC6119]/4.2   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    10     | IPv6 neighbor       |     22/13     | [RFC6119]/4.3   |
|           | address             |               |                 |
|    11     | OSPF Route Type     |      264      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.2.3.1        |
|    12     | IP Reachability     |      265      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Information         |               | /3.2.3.2        |
|    13     | Node Flag Bits      |      1024     | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.1.1        |
|    14     | Opaque Node         |      1025     | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Properties          |               | /3.3.1.5        |
|    15     | Node Name           |      1026     | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.1.3        |
|    16     | IS-IS Area          |      1027     | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Identifier          |               | /3.3.1.2        |
|    17     | IPv4 Router-ID of   |      134/--   | [RFC5305]/4.3   |
|           | Local Node          |               |                 |
|    18     | IPv6 Router-ID of   |      140/--   | [RFC6119]/4.1   |
|           | Local Node          |               |                 |
|    19     | IPv4 Router-ID of   |      134/--   | [RFC5305]/4.3   |
|           | Remote Node         |               |                 |
|    20     | IPv6 Router-ID of   |      140/--   | [RFC6119]/4.1   |
|           | Remote Node         |               |                 |
|    21     | Link Local/Remote   |     22/4      | [RFC5307]/1.1   |
|           | Identifiers         |               |                 |
|    22     | Administrative      |     22/3      | [RFC5305]/3.1   |
|           | group (color)       |               |                 |
|    23     | Maximum link        |     22/9      | [RFC5305]/3.3   |
|           | bandwidth           |               |                 |
|    24     | Max. reservable     |    22/10      | [RFC5305]/3.5   |
|           | link bandwidth      |               |                 |
|    25     | Unreserved          |    22/11      | [RFC5305]/3.6   |
|           | bandwidth           |               |                 |
|    26     | TE Default Metric   |    22/18      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.2.3        |
|    27     | Link Protection     |    22/20      | [RFC5307]/1.2   |
|           | Type                |               |                 |
|    28     | MPLS Protocol Mask  |     1094      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.2.2        |
|    29     | IGP Metric          |     1095      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.2.4        |
|    30     | Shared Risk Link    |     1096      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Group               |               | /3.3.2.5        |
|    31     | Opaque link         |     1097      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | attributes          |               | /3.3.2.6        |
|    32     | Link Name attribute |     1098      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.2.7        |
|    33     | Unidirectional      |     22/33     | [RFC7810]/4.1   |
|           | Link Delay          |               |                 |
|    34     | Min/Max             |     22/34     | [RFC7810]/4.2   |
|           | Unidirectional Link |               |                 |
|           | Delay               |               |                 |
|    35     | Unidirectional      |     22/35     | [RFC7810]/4.3   |
|           | Delay Variation     |               |                 |
|    36     | Unidirectional      |     22/36     | [RFC7810]/4.4   |
|           | Link Loss           |               |                 |
|    37     | Unidirectional      |     22/37     | [RFC7810]/4.5   |
|           | Residual Bandwidth  |               |                 |
|    38     | Unidirectional      |     22/38     | [RFC7810]/4.6   |
|           | Available Bandwidth |               |                 |
|    39     | Unidirectional      |     22/39     | [RFC7810]/4.7   |
|           | Bandwidth           |               |                 |
|           | Utilization         |               |                 |
|    40     | Extended Admin      |     22/14     | [RFC7308]/2.1   |
|           | Group (EAG)         |               |                 |
|    41     | IGP Flags           |     1152      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.3.1        |
|    42     | Route Tag           |     1153      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.3.2        |
|    43     | Extended Tag        |     1154      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.3.3        |
|    44     | Prefix Metric       |     1155      | [RFC7752]       |
|           |                     |               | /3.3.3.4        |
|    45     | OSPF Forwarding     |     1156      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Address             |               | /3.3.3.5        |
|    46     | Opaque Prefix       |     1157      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Attribute           |               | /3.3.3.6        |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
      <t>New values are to be assigned by Standards Action <xref target="RFC5226"/>.</t>
    </section>
    </section>
    <section title="TLV/Sub-TLV Code Points Summary">
    <t>This section contains the global table of all TLVs/Sub-TLVs in LS object defined
   in this document.</t>
   <figure title="TLV Table" suppress-title="false" align="center" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="center" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|    TLV    | Description         |     Ref TLV   | Value defined   |
|           |                     |               | in:             |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+
|    TBD7   | Routing Universe    |      --       | Sec 9.2.1       |
|    TBD15  | Route               |      --       | Sec 9.2.2       |
|           | Distinguisher       |               |                 |
|     *     | Virtual Network     |      --       | [leedhody-pce-  |
|           |                     |               | vn-association] |  
|    TBD8   | Local Node          |      256      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Descriptors         |               | /3.2.1.2        |
|    TBD9   | Remote Node         |      257      | [RFC7752]       |
|           | Descriptors         |               | /3.2.1.3        |
|    TBD10  | Link Descriptors    |      --       | Sec 9.2.8       |
|    TBD11  | Prefix Descriptors  |      --       | Sec 9.2.9       |
|    TBD12  | Node Attributes     |      --       | Sec 9.2.10.1    |
|    TBD13  | Link Attributes     |      --       | Sec 9.2.10.2    |
|    TBD14  | Prefix Attributes   |      --       | Sec 9.2.10.3    |
+-----------+---------------------+---------------+-----------------+

* this TLV is defined in a different PCEP document
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
<t>Refer <xref target="subtlv"/> for the table of Sub-TLVs.</t>

    </section>
    <section title="Acknowledgments" toc="default">
      <t>This document borrows some of the structure and text from the
      <xref target="RFC7752"/>.
      </t>
      <t>Thanks to Eric Wu, Venugopal Kondreddy, Mahendra Singh Negi,
      Avantika, and Zhengbin Li for the reviews.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5305.xml" ?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5307.xml" ?>

    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440.xml" ?>

    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6119.xml" ?>

    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7752"?>
    <?rfc include="reference.RFC.7810"?>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.3630.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4203.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4364.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.4655.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5120.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5226.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5316.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5392.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6549.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6805.xml" ?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.6822.xml" ?>

      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pceps"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.kondreddy-pce-pcep-ls-sync-optimizations"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.leedhody-teas-pcep-ls"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-actn-framework"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-teas-actn-requirements"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.I-D.leedhody-pce-vn-association"?>


    </references>
<section title="Contributor Addresses" toc="default">
    <t>
    <figure title="" suppress-title="false" align="left" alt="" width="" height="">
          <artwork xml:space="preserve" name="" type="" align="left" alt="" width="" height=""><![CDATA[
Udayasree Palle
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
India

EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com

Sergio Belotti
Alcatel-Lucent
Italy

EMail: sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com

Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore, Karnataka  560066
India

Email: veerendranatharv@huawei.com

        ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
      </t>
    </section>
  </back>
</rfc>
