<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced.
An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->

<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs),
please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
(Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth="4"?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc sortrefs="no" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space
(using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-24" ipr="trust200902" updates="8231">
<!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
ipr values: full3667, noModification3667, noDerivatives3667
you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN"
they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

<!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP SR Policy">
    Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>

    <author fullname="Mike Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>385 Terry Fox Dr.</street>
          <city>Kanata</city>
          <region>Ontario</region>
          <code>K2K 0L1</code>
          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>
        <email>mkoldych@proton.me</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>385 Terry Fox Dr.</street>
          <city>Kanata</city>
          <region>Ontario</region>
          <code>K2K 0L1</code>
          <country>Canada</country>
        </postal>
        <email>ssivabal@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Samuel Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Eurovea Central 3.</street>
          <city>Bratislava</city>
          <code>811 09</code>
          <country>Slovakia</country>
        </postal>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Colby Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>cbarth@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Shuping Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>

       <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.</street>

           <city>Beijing</city>

           <region/>

           <code>100095</code>

           <country>China</country>
        </postal>

         <phone/>

         <facsimile/>

         <email>pengshuping@huawei.com</email>

         <uri/>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date/>

    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>

<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,
   called a headend node. 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>

<middle>

<section anchor="Introduction" title="Introduction">

<t>Segment Routing (SR) Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of Segment Routing (SR) Policy <xref target="RFC8402"/> and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy.</t>

<t>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing <xref target="RFC8664"/> specifies extensions to the PCEP that allow a stateful Path Computation Element (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.
Although PCEP extensions introduced in <xref target="RFC8664"/> are defined for creation of SR-TE tunnels, these are not SR Policies and lack many important features described in <xref target="RFC9256"/>.
</t>

<t>PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of Label Switched Paths (LSPs) <xref target="RFC8697"/> introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs which is called an Association.</t>

<t>An SR Policy is associated with one or more candidate paths. A candidate path is the unit for signaling of an SR Policy to a headend as described in Section 2.2 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.
This document extends <xref target="RFC8664"/> to support signaling SR Policy Candidate Paths as LSPs and to signal Candidate Path membership in
an SR Policy by means of the Association mechanism.
A PCEP Association corresponds to a SR Policy and a LSP corresponds to a Candidate Path.
The unit of signaling in PCEP is the LSP, thus all the information related to SR Policy is carried at the Candidate Path level.
</t>

<t>Also, this document updates Section 5.8.2 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, making the use of Path Computation Request (PCReq) and Path Computation Reply (PCRep) messages optional for LSPs setup using Path Setup Type 1 (Segment Routing) <xref target="RFC8664"/> and Path Setup Type 3 (SRv6) <xref target="RFC9603"/> with the aim of reducing the PCEP message exchanges and simplifying implementation.</t>

<section anchor="Language" title="Requirements Language">
      <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> <!-- Introduction -->

<section anchor="Terminology" title="Terminology">


  
     <t>This document uses the following terms defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>: PCC,
   PCE, PCEP Peer, and PCEP speaker.</t>

     <t>This document uses the following terms defined in <xref target="RFC3031"/>: LSP.</t>

	 <t>The following terms are used in this document:

	 <list style="hanging">

     <t hangText="Endpoint:"> The IPv4 or IPv6 endpoint address of an SR Policy, as described in Section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

     <t hangText="Color:"> The 32-bit color of an SR Policy, as described in Section 2.1 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

     <t hangText="Protocol-Origin:"> The protocol that was used to create a Candidate Path, as described in Section 2.3 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

     <t hangText="Originator:"> A device that created a Candidate Path, as described in Section 2.4 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

     <t hangText="Discriminator:"> Distinguishes Candidate Paths created by the same device, as described in Section 2.5 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

     <t hangText="Association Parameters:"> As described in <xref target="RFC8697"/>, refers to the key data that uniquely identifies an Association.</t>

     <t hangText="Association Information:"> As described in Section 6.1.4 of <xref target="RFC8697"/>, refers to information related to Association Type.</t>
	 
	 <t hangText="SR Policy LSP:"> An LSP set up using Path Setup Type <xref target="RFC8408"/> 1 (Segment Routing) or 3 (SRv6).</t>
	 
          <t hangText="SR Policy Association:"> A new association type used to group candidate paths belonging to same SR
   Policy. Depending on the discussion context, it can refer to the PCEP
   ASSOCIATION object of SR Policy type or to a group of LSPs that
   belong to the association.</t>
      </list>
</t>

</section> <!-- Terminology -->

<section anchor="Overview" title="Overview">

<t>
The SR Policy is represented by a new type of PCEP Association, called the SR Policy Association (SRPA) (see <xref target="Association"/>).
The SR Candidate Paths of an SR Policy are the LSPs within the same SRPA.
Encoding multiple Segment Lists within an SR Policy Candidate Path is described in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-multipath"/>. These considerations are not covered here.
</t>

<t>An SRPA carries three pieces of information:
SR Policy Identifier, SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier, and SR Policy Candidate Path Attribute(s).</t>

<t>
This document also specifies some additional information that is not encoded as part of an SRPA: Computation Priority of the LSP, Explicit Null Label Policy for the unlabeled IP packets and Drop-upon-invalid behavior for traffic steering when the LSP is operationally down (see <xref target="Other-mechanisms"/>).
</t>

<section anchor="SRPolicyIdentifier" title="SR Policy Identifier">
<t>SR Policy Identifier uniquely identifies an SR Policy <xref target="RFC9256"/> within the network.
SR Policy identifier is assigned by PCEP peer originating the LSP.
SR Policy Identifier MUST be the same for all SR Policy Candidate Paths in the same SRPA.
SR Policy Identifier MUST be constant for a given SR Policy Candidate Path for the lifetime of the PCEP session.
SR Policy Identifier MUST be different for different SRPAs.
If the identifier is inconsistent among Candidate Paths, changes during the lifetime of the PCEP session, or is not unique across different SRPAs, the receiving PCEP speaker MUST send a PCEP Error (PCErr) message with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error" and Error Value = 20 "SR Policy Identifier Mismatch".
SR Policy Identifier consists of:</t>
<t>
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>Headend router where the SR Policy originates.</t>
        <t>Color of the SR Policy (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.1).</t>
        <t>Endpoint of the SR Policy (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.1).</t>
      </list>
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="SRPolicyCandidatePathIdentifier" title="SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier">
<t>SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier uniquely identifies the SR Policy Candidate Path within the context of an SR Policy.
SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier MUST be constant for the lifetime of the PCEP session.
SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier MUST be different for distinct Candidate Paths within the same SRPA.
If SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier changes during the lifetime of the PCEP session or is not unique among distinct Candidate Paths, the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 26 "Association Error" and Error Value = 21 "SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier Mismatch".
SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier consists of:</t>
<t>
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>Protocol Origin (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.3).</t>
        <t>Originator (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.4).</t>
        <t>Discriminator (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.5).</t>
      </list>
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="SRPolicyCandidatePathAttributes" title="SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes">
<t>SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes carry optional, non-key information about a Candidate Path and MAY change during the lifetime of an LSP.
SR Policy Candidate Path Attributes consists of:</t>
<t>
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>Candidate Path preference (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.7).</t>
        <t>Candidate Path name (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.6).</t>
        <t>SR Policy name (<xref target="RFC9256"/>, Section 2.1).</t>
      </list>
</t>
</section>

</section> <!-- Overview -->

<section anchor="Association" title="SR Policy Association (SRPA)">
<t>
   Per <xref target="RFC8697"/>, LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they
   interact by adding them to a common association group.  An association group is uniquely identified by the
   combination of the following fields in the ASSOCIATION object <xref target="RFC8697" sectionFormat="of" section="6.1"/>:
   Association Type, Association ID, Association Source, and (if
   present) Global Association Source, or Extended Association ID. These fields are
   referred to as Association Parameters (<xref target="AssociationParameters"/>).
</t>
<t>
<xref target="RFC8697"/> specifies the ASSOCIATION Object with two Object-Types for IPv4 and IPv6 which includes the field "Association Type". This document defines a new Association type (6) "SR Policy Association" for SRPA.
</t>

<t>
<xref target="RFC8697"/> specifies the mechanism for the capability advertisement of
   the Association Types supported by a PCEP speaker by defining an
   ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be carried within an OPEN object. This
   capability exchange for the SR Policy Association Type MUST
   be done before using the SRPA.  To that aim, a
   PCEP speaker MUST include the SRPA Type (6) in
   the ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same from the PCEP peer
   before using the SRPA (<xref target="Association-Type"/>).
</t>

<t>
A given LSP MUST belong to at most one SRPA, since an SR Policy Candidate Path cannot belong to multiple SR Policies.
If a PCEP speaker receives a PCEP message requesting to join more than one SRPA for the same LSP,
then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 7 "Cannot join the association group".
</t>

<t>
The existing behavior for the use of Binding SID with SR Policy is already documented in <xref target="RFC9604"/>. If BSID value allocation failed, because of conflict with BSID used by another policy, then PCEP peer MUST send a PCErr message with Error-Type = 32 "Binding label/SID failure" and Error-value = 2 "Unable to allocate the specified binding value".
</t>

<section anchor="AssociationParameters" title="Association Parameters">

<t>
Per <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.1"/>,
an SR Policy is identified through the &#60;headend, color, endpoint&#62; tuple.
</t>

<t>The Association Parameters consists of:</t>
<t>
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>Association Type: Set to 6 "SR Policy Association".</t>
        <t>Association Source (IPv4/IPv6): Set to the headend value of the SR Policy, as defined in <xref target="RFC9256"/> Section 2.1.</t>
        <t>Association ID (16-bit): Always set to the numeric value "1".</t>
	<t>Extended Association ID TLV: Mandatory TLV for SR Policy Association. Encodes the Color and Endpoint of the SR Policy (<xref target="Extended-Association-ID-TLV-FORMAT"/>).</t>
      </list>
</t>

<figure anchor="Extended-Association-ID-TLV-FORMAT" title="Extended Association ID TLV Format">
<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 = 31           |       Length = 8 or 20        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Color                             |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~                           Endpoint                            ~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: Extended Association ID TLV, type = 31 <xref target="RFC8697"/>.</t>

<t>Length: Either 8 or 20, depending on whether an IPv4 or IPv6 address is encoded in the Endpoint field.</t>

<t>Color: SR Policy color value, MUST be non-zero per <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.1"/>.</t>

<t>Endpoint: can be either IPv4 or IPv6 address.
This value MAY be different from the one contained in the Destination address field in the END-POINTS object, or in the Tunnel Endpoint Address field in the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV (<xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.1"/>).</t>

<t>If a PCEP speaker receives an SRPA object
whose Association Parameters do not follow the above specification,
then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 26 "Association Error", Error-Value = 20 "SR Policy Identifier Mismatch".</t>

<t>The encoding choice of the Association Parameters in this way is meant to guarantee that there is no possibility of a race condition when multiple PCEP speakers want to associate the same SR Policy at the same time. By adhering to this format, all PCEP speakers come up with the same Association Parameters independently of each other based on the SR Policy parameters <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

<t>
The last hop of a computed SR Policy Candidate Path MAY differ from the Endpoint contained in the &#60;headend, color, endpoint&#62; tuple.
An example use case is to terminate the SR Policy before reaching the Endpoint and have decapsulated traffic be forwarded the rest of the path to the Endpoint node using the native IGP path(s).
In this example, the destination of the SR Policy Candidate Paths will be some node before the Endpoint, but the Endpoint value is still used at the headend to steer traffic with that Endpoint IP address into the SR Policy.
The Destination of the SR Policy Candidate Path is signaled using the END-POINTS object and/or LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV, per the usual PCEP procedure.
When neither the END-POINTS object nor LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV is present,
the PCEP speaker MUST extract the destination from the Endpoint field in the SRPA Extended Association ID TLV.
</t>

<t>
SR Policy with Color-Only steering is signaled with the Endpoint value set to unspecified, i.e., 0.0.0.0 for IPv4 or :: for IPv6, per <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="8.8."/>.
</t>

</section> <!-- AssociationParameters -->

<section anchor="AssociationInformation" title="Association Information">

<t>The SRPA object may carry the following TLVs:</t>

<t>
      <list style="symbols">
        <t>SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV (<xref target="Policy-name-tlv"/>): (optional) encodes the SR Policy Name string.</t>
        <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV (<xref target="Cpath-identifier-tlv"/>): (mandatory) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier.</t>
        <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME"/>): (optional) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path string name.</t>
        <t>SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV (<xref target="Cpath-preference-tlv"/>): (optional) encodes the SR Policy Candidate Path preference value.</t>
      </list>
</t>

<t>When a mandatory TLV is missing from an SRPA object, the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with
Error-Type = 6 "Mandatory Object Missing", Error-Value = 21 "Missing SR Policy Mandatory TLV".</t>

<t>Only one TLV instance of each TLV type can be carried in an SRPA object, and only the first occurrence is processed.  Any others MUST be silently ignored.</t>

<section anchor="Policy-name-tlv" title="SR Policy Name TLV">

<t>
The SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-POL-NAME-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is an optional TLV for the SRPA object. It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the SR Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to truncate long names to 255 bytes to simplify interoperability with other protocols.
</t>

<figure anchor="SRPOLICY-POL-NAME-TLV-FORMAT" title="SRPOLICY-POL-NAME TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  ~                       SR Policy Name                          ~
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 56 for "SRPOLICY-POL-NAME" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. Padding is not included in the Length field.</t>

<t>SR Policy Name: SR Policy name, as defined in <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.1"/>. It MUST be a string of printable ASCII <xref target="RFC0020"/> characters, without a NULL terminator.</t>

</section> <!-- Policy-name-tlv -->

<section anchor="Cpath-identifier-tlv" title="SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier TLV">

<t>
The SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is a mandatory TLV for the SRPA object.
</t>

<figure anchor="SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID-TLV-FORMAT" title="SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  | Proto. Origin |                 Reserved                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Originator ASN                        |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  |                       Originator Address                      |
  |                                                               |
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Discriminator                         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 57 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 28.</t>

<t>Protocol Origin: 8-bit value that encodes the protocol origin. The values of this field are specified in IANA registry "SR Policy Protocol Origin" under "Segment Routing" registry group, which was introduced in Section 8.4 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy"/>.
Note that in the PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281"/>, the Protocol Origin is always set to 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)". The "SR Policy Protocol Origin" IANA registry includes a combination of values intended for use in PCEP and BGP-LS. When the registry contains two variants of values associated with the mechanism or protocol used for provisioning of the Candidate Path, for example 1 - "PCEP" and 10 - "PCEP (In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)", the "(In PCEP or when BGP-LS Producer is PCE)" variants MUST be used in PCEP.</t>

<t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

<t>Originator Autonomous System Number (ASN): Represented as a 4-byte number, part of the originator identifier, as specified in <xref format="default" section="2.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>.
When sending a PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281"/>, the PCE is the originator of the Candidate Path.
If the PCE is configured with an ASN, then it MUST set it, otherwise the ASN is set to 0.
</t>

<t>Originator Address: Represented as a 128-bit value as specified in <xref format="default" section="2.4" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>. When sending a PCInitiate message, the PCE is acting as the originator and therefore MUST set this to an address that it owns.
</t>

<t>Discriminator: 32-bit value that encodes the Discriminator of the Candidate Path, as specified in <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.5"/>.
This is the field that mainly distinguishes different SR Candidate Paths, coming from the same originator. It is allowed to be any number in the 32-bit range.
</t>

</section> <!-- Cpath-identifier-tlv -->

<section anchor="SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME" title="SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV">

<t>
The SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is an optional TLV for the SRPA object. It is RECOMMENDED that the size of the symbolic name for the SR Policy is limited to 255 bytes. Implementations MAY choose to truncate long names to 255 bytes to simplify interoperability with other protocols.
</t>

<figure anchor="SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME-TLV-FORMAT" title="SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  ~                 SR Policy Candidate Path Name                 ~
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 58 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: indicates the length of the value portion of the TLV in octets and MUST be greater than 0. The TLV MUST be zero-padded so that the TLV is 4-octet aligned. Padding is not included in the Length field</t>

<t>SR Policy Candidate Path Name: SR Policy Candidate Path Name, as defined in <xref target="RFC9256" sectionFormat="of" section="2.6"/>. It MUST be a string of printable ASCII characters, without a NULL terminator.</t>

</section> <!-- SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME -->

<section anchor="Cpath-preference-tlv" title="SR Policy Candidate Path Preference TLV">

<t>
The SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is an optional TLV for the SRPA object.
If the TLV is absent, then default Preference value is 100, per <xref format="default" section="2.7" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>.
</t>

<figure anchor="SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE-TLV-FORMAT" title="SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                           Preference                          |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 59 for "SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Preference: Numerical preference of the Candidate Path as defined in <xref format="default" section="2.7" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>.</t>

</section> <!-- Cpath-preference-tlv -->

</section> <!-- AssociationInformation -->

</section> <!-- Association -->

<section anchor="Other-mechanisms" title="SR Policy Signaling Extensions">

<t>This section introduces mechanisms that are described
for SR Policies in <xref target="RFC9256"/> to PCEP,
but which do not make use of the SRPA for signaling in PCEP.
Since SRPA is not used, there needs to be a separate capability
negotiation.</t>

<t>
   This document specifies four new TLVs to be carried in the OPEN or LSP object.
   Only one TLV instance of each type can be carried, and only the first
   occurrence is processed.  Any others MUST be ignored.
</t>

<section anchor="Capability-tlv" title="SR Policy Capability TLV">

<t>
The SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV (<xref target="SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is a TLV for the OPEN object.
It is used at session establishment to learn the peer's
capabilities with respect to SR Policy.
Implementations that support SR Policy MUST include SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV in the OPEN object if the extension is enabled.
In addition, the ASSOC-Type-List TLV containing SRPA Type (6) MUST be present in the OPEN object, as specified in <xref target="Association"/>.</t>

<t>If a PCEP speaker receives SRPA but the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is
not exchanged, then the PCEP speaker MUST send a PCErr message with Error-
Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD
("Missing SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV") and MUST then close the PCEP
session.</t>

<figure anchor="SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY-TLV-FORMAT" title="SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Flags                   |L| |I|E|P|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 71 for "SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Flags (32 bits):</t>

<t> The following flags are currently defined:</t>

<list style="symbols">

<t>P-flag (Computation Priority): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the P flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV for the SR Policy
(<xref target="Computation-priority-tlv"/>).
If this flag is not set, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.
</t>

<t>E-Flag (Explicit NULL Label Policy): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the E flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV for the SR Policy
  (<xref target="enlp-tlv"/>).
If this flag is not set, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the ENLP TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.
</t>

<t>I-Flag (Invalidation): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the I flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the handling of INVALIDATION TLV for the SR Policy
  (<xref target="Invalidation-tlv"/>).
If this flag is not set, then the receiving PCEP speaker MUST NOT send the INVALIDATION TLV and MUST ignore it on receipt.
</t>

<t>L-Flag (Stateless Operation): If set to '1' by a PCEP speaker, the L flag indicates that the PCEP speaker supports the stateless (PCReq/PCRep) operations for the SR Policy
  (<xref target="Stateless-oper"/>).
  If the PCE did not set this flag then the PCC MUST NOT send PCReq messages to this PCE for the SR Policy.
</t>

</list>

<t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. More flags can be assigned in the future per (<xref target="sr_policy_cap_flag_field"/>)</t>

</section> <!-- Capability-tlv -->

<section anchor="Computation-priority-tlv" title="Computation Priority TLV">

<t>The COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV (<xref target="COMPUTATION-PRIORITY-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is an optional TLV for the LSP object.
It is used to signal the numerical computation priority, as specified in Section 2.12 of <xref target="RFC9256"/>.
If the TLV is absent from the LSP object and the P-flag in the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is set to 1, a default Priority value of 128 is used.</t>

<figure anchor="COMPUTATION-PRIORITY-TLV-FORMAT" title="COMPUTATION-PRIORITY TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    Priority   |                   Reserved                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 68 for "COMPUTATION-PRIORITY" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Priority: Numerical priority with which this LSP is to be recomputed by the PCE upon topology change. Lowest value is the highest priority.</t>

<t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

</section> <!-- Computation-priority-tlv -->

<section anchor="enlp-tlv" title="Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV">

<t>
    To steer an unlabeled IP packet into an SR policy for the MPLS data plane, it is necessary to push a label stack of one or more labels on that packet.
    The Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP) TLV is an optional TLV for the LSP object used to indicate whether an Explicit NULL Label <xref target="RFC3032"/> must be pushed on an unlabeled IP packet before any other labels.
    The contents of this TLV are used by the SR Policy Manager as described in <xref format="default" section="4.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>.
    If an ENLP TLV is not present, the decision of whether to push an Explicit NULL label on a given packet is a matter of local configuration.
Note that Explicit Null is currently only defined for SR-MPLS and not for SRv6. Therefore, the receiving PCEP speaker MUST ignore the presence of this TLV for SRv6 Policies.
</t>

<figure anchor="ENLP-TLV-FORMAT" title="Explicit Null Label Policy (ENLP) TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |    ENLP       |                   Reserved                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 69 for "ENLP" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>
  ENLP (Explicit NULL Label Policy): Indicates whether Explicit NULL labels are to be pushed on unlabeled IP packets
  that are being steered into a given SR policy.
  The values of this field are specified in IANA registry "SR Policy ENLP Values" under "Segment Routing" registry group, which was introduced in Section 6.10 of <xref target="I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi"/>.
</t>

<t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

<t>
    The ENLP unassigned values may be used for future extensions and implementations MUST ignore the ENLP TLV with unrecognized values.
    The behavior signaled in this TLV MAY be overridden by local configuration by the network operator based on their deployment requirements.
    The <xref format="default" section="4.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/> describes the behavior on the headend for the handling of the explicit null label.
</t>

</section> <!-- enlp-tlv -->

<section anchor="Invalidation-tlv" title="Invalidation TLV">

<t>The INVALIDATION TLV (<xref target="INVALIDATION-TLV-FORMAT"/>) is an optional TLV for the LSP object.
This TLV is used to control traffic steering into an LSP
when the LSP is operationally down/invalid.
In the context of SR Policy, this TLV facilitates
the Drop-upon-invalid behavior,
specified in <xref format="default" section="8.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>.
Normally, if the LSP is down/invalid then it stops attracting traffic; 
traffic that would have been destined for that LSP
is redirected somewhere else, such as via IGP or another LSP.
The Drop-upon-invalid behavior specifies that the LSP keeps attracting traffic
and the traffic has to be dropped at the headend.
Such an LSP is said to be "in drop state".
While in the drop state, the LSP operational state is "UP",
as indicated by the O-flag in the LSP object.
However, the ERO object MAY be empty, if no valid path has been computed.
</t>
<t>
The INVALIDATION TLV is used in both directions between PCEP peers:
  <list style="symbols">
    <t>PCE -> PCC: PCE specifies to the PCC whether to enable or disable Drop-upon-invalid (Config).</t>
    <t>PCC -> PCE: PCC reports the current setting of the Drop-upon-invalid (Config) and also whether the LSP is currently in the drop state (Oper).</t>
  </list>
</t>

<figure anchor="INVALIDATION-TLV-FORMAT" title="INVALIDATION TLV Format">
<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              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |   Oper        |   Config      |            Reserved           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>Type: 70 for "INVALIDATION" TLV.</t>

<t>Length: 4.</t>

<t>Oper: An 8-bit flag field that encodes the operational state of the LSP. It MUST be set to 0 by the PCE when sending and MUST be ignored by the PCC upon receipt.
See <xref target="inval_oper_iana"/> for IANA information.
</t>

<figure anchor="OPER_INVAL_FLAGS" title="Oper state of Drop-upon-invalid feature">
<artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             |D|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>
  <list style="symbols">
    <t>D: dropping - the LSP is actively dropping traffic as a result of Drop-upon-invalid behavior being activated.</t>
    <t>The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.</t>
  </list>
</t>

<t>Config: An 8-bit flag field that encodes the configuration of the LSP.
See <xref target="inval_config_iana"/> for IANA information.
</t>

<figure anchor="CONFIG_INVAL_FLAGS" title="Config state of Drop-upon-invalid feature">
<artwork align="center"><![CDATA[
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             |D|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
</figure>

<t>
  <list style="symbols">
    <t>D: drop enabled - the Candidate Path has Drop-upon-invalid feature enabled.</t>
    <t>The unassigned bits in the Flag octet MUST be set to zero upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon receipt.</t>
  </list>
</t>

<t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>

<section anchor="Invalidation-per-policy" title="Drop-upon-invalid applies to SR Policy">

<t>
The Drop-upon-invalid feature is somewhat special among the other SR Policy features in the way that it is enabled/disabled.
This feature is enabled only on the whole SR Policy, not on a particular Candidate Path of that SR Policy,
i.e., when any Candidate Path has Drop-upon-invalid enabled, it means that the whole SR Policy has the feature enabled.
As stated in <xref format="default" section="8.1" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC9256"/>1, an SR Policy is invalid when all its Candidate Paths are invalid.
</t>

<t>
Once all the Candidate Paths of an SR Policy have become invalid, then the SR Policy checks whether any of the Candidate Paths
have Drop-upon-invalid enabled.
If so, the SR Policy enters the drop state and "activates" the highest preference Candidate Path which has
the Drop-upon-invalid enabled.
Note that only one Candidate Path needs to be reported to the PCE with the D (dropping) flag set.
</t>

</section> <!-- Invalidation-per-policy -->

</section> <!-- Invalidation-tlv -->

<section anchor="Stateless-oper" title="Update to RFC 8231">

<t>
<xref format="default" section="5.8.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8231"/>, allows delegation of an LSP in operationally down state,
but at the same time mandates the use of PCReq before sending PCRpt.
This document updates <xref format="default" section="5.8.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8231"/>,
by making that section of <xref target="RFC8231"/> not applicable to SR Policy LSPs.
Thus, when a PCC wants to delegate an SR Policy LSP, it MAY proceed directly to sending PCRpt,
without first sending PCReq and waiting for PCRep.
This has the advantage of reducing the number of PCEP messages and simplifying the implementation.
</t>

<t>
Furthermore, a PCEP speaker is not required to support PCReq/PCRep at all for SR Policies.
The PCEP speaker can indicate support for PCReq/PCRep via the "L-Flag" in
the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV (See <xref target="Capability-tlv"/>).
When this flag is cleared, or when the SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY TLV is absent,
the given peer MUST NOT be sent PCReq/PCRep messages for SR Policy LSPs.
Conversely, when this flag is set, the peer can receive and process
PCReq/PCRep messages for SR Policy LSPs.
</t>

<t>
The above applies only to SR Policy LSPs and does not affect other LSP types,
such as RSVP-TE LSPs. For other LSP types, <xref format="default" section="5.8.2" sectionFormat="of" target="RFC8231"/>
continues to apply.
</t>

</section> <!-- Stateless-oper -->

</section> <!-- Other mechanisms -->

<section title="IANA Considerations">

<t>IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
    registry at <eref brackets="angle" target="https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep"/>.</t>

<section anchor="Association-Type" title="Association Type">
<t>This document defines a new association type: SR Policy Association.
IANA is requested to confirm the following allocation in the
"ASSOCIATION Type Field" registry within
the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
<t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Type      | Name                                      | Reference |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 6         | SR Policy Association                     | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</t>
</section>

<section title="PCEP TLV Type Indicators">
<t>This document defines eight new TLVs for carrying additional information about SR Policy and SR Candidate Paths. IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations in the existing "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry as follows:</t>
<t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Value     | Description                               | Reference |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 56        | SRPOLICY-POL-NAME                         | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 57        | SRPOLICY-CPATH-ID                         | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 58        | SRPOLICY-CPATH-NAME                       | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 59        | SRPOLICY-CPATH-PREFERENCE                 | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 68        | COMPUTATION-PRIORITY                      | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 69        | EXPLICIT-NULL-LABEL-POLICY                | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 70        | INVALIDATION                              | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 71        | SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY                       | This.I-D  |
+-----------+-------------------------------------------+-----------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</t>
</section>

<section title="PCEP Errors">
<t>This document defines one new Error-Value within the "Mandatory Object Missing" Error-Type, two new Error-Values within the "Association Error" Error-Type and one new Error-Value within the "Reception of an invalid object". </t>
<t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.</t>
<t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| Error-Type | Meaning          | Error-value           | Reference |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 6          | Mandatory Object |                       | [RFC5440] |
|            | Missing          |                       |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
|            |                  | 21: Missing SR        | This.I-D  |
|            |                  | Policy Mandatory TLV  |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 26         | Association      |                       | [RFC8697] |
|            | Error            |                       |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
|            |                  | 20: SR Policy         | This.I-D  |
|            |                  | Identifers Mismatch   |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
|            |                  | 21: SR Policy         | This.I-D  |
|            |                  | Candidate Path        |           |
|            |                  | Identifier Mismatch   |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+

]]></artwork>
      </figure></t>

<t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.</t>

<t><figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| Error-Type | Meaning          | Error-value           | Reference |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
| 10         | Reception of an  |                       | [RFC5440] |
|            | invalid object   |                       |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+
|            |                  | TBA: Missing          | This.I-D  |
|            |                  | SRPOLICY-CAPABILITY   |           |
|            |                  | TLV                   |           |
+------------+------------------+-----------------------+-----------+

]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</t>
</section>

<section title="TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field">
<t>
An earlier version of this document added new bit within the "TE-PATH-BINDING TLV Flag field" registry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group, which was also early allocated by the IANA.</t>
<t>
IANA is requested to cancel the early allocation made which is not needed anymore.  As per the instructions from the chairs, please mark it as deprecated.</t>
<t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+------------+------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit position | Description                            | Reference |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+-----------+
| 1            | Deprecated (Specified-BSID-only)       | This.I-D  |
+--------------+----------------------------------------+-----------+

]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</t>
</section>

<section anchor="inval_oper_iana" title="SR Policy Invalidation Operational State">
<t>
This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
The new registry is called "SR Policy Invalidation Operational Flags".
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/>.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit).</t>
  <t>Description.</t>
  <t>Reference.</t>
  </list>
</t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit   | Description                                   | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 - 6 | Unassigned                                    | This.I-D  |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 7     | D: dropping - the LSP is currently attracting | This.I-D  |
|       | traffic and actively dropping it.             |           |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</section>

<section anchor="inval_config_iana" title="SR Policy Invalidation Configuration State">
<t>
This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
The new registry is called "SR Policy Invalidation Configuration Flags".
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/>.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit).</t>
  <t>Description.</t>
  <t>Reference.</t>
  </list>
</t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit   | Description                                   | Reference |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 - 6 | Unassigned.                                   | This.I-D  |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 7     | D: drop enabled - the Drop-upon-invalid is    | This.I-D  |
|       | enabled on the LSP.                           |           |
+-------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</section>

<section anchor="sr_policy_cap_flag_field" title="SR Policy Capability TLV Flag field">
<t>
This document requests IANA to maintain a new registry under "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
The new registry is called "SR Policy Capability TLV Flag Field".
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/>.
Each bit should be tracked with the following qualities:
  <list style="symbols">
  <t>Bit (counting from bit 0 as the most significant bit).</t>
  <t>Description.</t>
  <t>Reference.</t>
  </list>
</t>
<figure>
        <artwork align="left"><![CDATA[
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| Bit    | Description                                   | Reference |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 0 - 26 | Unassigned                                    | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 27     | Stateless Operation                           | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 28     | Unassigned                                    | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 29     | Invalidation                                  | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 30     | Explicit NULL Label Policy                    | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+
| 31     | Computation Priority                          | This.I-D  |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------+-----------+

]]></artwork>
      </figure>
</section>

</section>

<section  title="Implementation Status">
      <t>[Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
      well as remove the reference to RFC 7942.]</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" title="Cisco">
        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Organization: Cisco Systems</t>

            <t>Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE.</t>

            <t>Description: All features supported except Computation Priority, Explicit NULL and Invalidation Drop.</t>

            <t>Maturity Level: Production.</t>

            <t>Coverage: Full.</t>

            <t>Contact: ssidor@cisco.com</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

      <section anchor="Juniper" title="Juniper">
        <t><list style="symbols">
            <t>Organization: Juniper Networks</t>

            <t>Implementation: PCC and PCE.</t>

            <t>Description: Everything in -05 except SR Policy Name TLV and SR Policy Candidate Path Name TLV.</t>

            <t>Maturity Level: Production.</t>

            <t>Coverage: Partial.</t>

            <t>Contact: cbarth@juniper.net</t>
          </list></t>
      </section>

</section>

<section  title="Security Considerations">
  <t>The information carried in the newly defined SRPA object and TLVs
  could provide an eavesdropper with additional information about the
  SR Policy.
  </t>
  <t>
  The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
  <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC8697"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/> and <xref target="RFC9603"/> 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"/> as per the recommendations and best current practices in <xref target="RFC9325"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Manageability Considerations" numbered="true" toc="default">
  <t>All manageability requirements and considerations listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>, and <xref target="RFC9603"/> apply to PCEP protocol extensions defined in this document. In addition, requirements and considerations listed in this section apply.</t>
  <section title="Control of Function and Policy" numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>A PCE or PCC implementation MAY allow the capabilities specified in Section 5.1 and the capability for support of SRPA advertised in ASSOC-Type-List TLV to be enabled and disabled.</t>
  </section>
  <section title="Information and Data Models" numbered="true" toc="default">
     <t><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang" format="default" sectionFormat="of" derivedContent="PCEP-SRv6-YANG"/> defines YANG module with common building blocks for PCEP Extensions described in Section 4.</t>
  </section>
  <section title="Liveness Detection and Monitoring" numbered="true" toc="default">
     <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, and <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
 </section>
  <section title="Verify Correct Operations" numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>Operation verification requirements already listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>, and <xref target="RFC9603"/> are applicable to mechanisms defined in this document.</t>
	<t>An implementation MUST allow the operator to view SR Policy Identifier and SR Policy Candidate Path Identifier advertised in SRPA object.</t>
	<t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the capabilities defined in this document advertised by each PCEP peer.</t>
	<t>An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view LSPs associated with specific SR Policy Identifier.</t>
  </section>
  <section title="Requirements On Other Protocols" numbered="true" toc="default">
    <t>The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not imply any new requirements on other protocols.</t>
  </section>
  <section title="Impact On Network Operations" numbered="true" toc="default">
	<t>The mechanisms defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/> and <xref target="RFC9603"/> also apply to the PCEP extensions defined in this document.</t>
  </section>
</section>
<section anchor="Acknowledgement" title="Acknowledgement">
<t>
We would like to thank Abdul Rehman, Andrew Stone, Boris Khasanov, Cheng Li, Dhruv Dhody, Gorry Fairhurst, Gyan Mishra, Huaimo Chen, Ines Robles, Joseph Salowey, Ketan Talaulikar, Marina Fizgeer, Mike Bishopm, Praveen Kumar, Robert Sparks, Roman Danyliw, Stephane Litkowski, Tom Petch, Zoey Rose, Xiao Min, Xiong Quan for review and suggestions.
</t>
</section> <!-- Acknowledgement -->

</middle>

<back>

<references title="Normative References">
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3032.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8402.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8408.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8664.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8697.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9256.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9325.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9603.xml"?>
  
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-sr-policy-safi.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-multipath.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-srv6-yang"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.0020.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3031.xml"?>
  <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9604.xml"?>
  
</references>

<section title="Contributors">
    <t><figure><artwork>
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei
India

Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com

Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing, 10095
China

Email: chengli13@huawei.com

Zafar Ali
Cisco Systems, Inc.

Email: zali@cisco.com

Rajesh Melarcode
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2000 Innovation Dr.
Kanata, Ontario
Canada

Email: rmelarco@cisco.com

</artwork></figure></t>


</section> <!-- Contributors -->

</back>

</rfc>

