<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional-13" number="9753" consensus="true" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" submissionType="IETF" updates="8231" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="4" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">

  <front>
    <title abbrev="Optional Processing of PCEP Objects">Extension for Stateful PCE to Allow Optional
    Processing of Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Objects</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9753"/>
    <author fullname="Cheng Li" initials="C." surname="Li">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.</street>
          <city>Beijing</city>
          <code>100095</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>c.l@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Haomian Zheng" initials="H." surname="Zheng">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>H1, Huawei Xiliu Beipo Village, Songshan Lake</street>
          <city>Dongguan</city>
          <region>Guangdong</region>
          <code>523808</code>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>zhenghaomian@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Stephane Litkowski" initials="S" surname="Litkowski">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>slitkows.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="April" year="2025"/>
    <area>RTG</area>
    <workgroup>pce</workgroup>

<keyword>PCEP</keyword>
<keyword>Stateful</keyword>
<keyword>optional processing</keyword>

    <abstract>
      <t>This document introduces a mechanism to mark some of the Path
      Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) objects as
      optional during PCEP message exchange, so the stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) model 
      can relax some constraints during path computation and setup. This
      document introduces this relaxation to stateful PCE, and it updates RFC
      8231.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> describes the Path Computation Element
      Communication Protocol (PCEP), which enables communication between a Path
      Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between
      two PCEs based on the PCE architecture <xref target="RFC4655" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>PCEP extensions for the stateful PCE model <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>
      describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of
      Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and
      Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels. <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> describes the
      setup and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE
      model, without the need for local configuration on the PCC, thus
      allowing for dynamic control.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> defined the P flag (Processing-Rule) in the
      Common Object Header to allow a PCC to specify in a Path Computation
      Request (PCReq) message (sent to a PCE) whether the object must be taken
      into account by the PCE during path computation or is optional. The I
      flag (Ignore) is used by the PCE in a Path Computation Reply (PCRep)
      message to indicate to a PCC whether or not an optional object was
      considered by the PCE during path computation. Stateful PCE <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> specifies that the P and I flags of the PCEP objects
      are to be set to zero on transmission
      and ignored on receipt, since they are exclusively related to the path
      computation requests. This document defines a new flag, the R (RELAX)
      flag in STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, in the PCEP common object header to
      indicate a PCE speaker supporting P and I flags processing, and it also
      specifies how the P and I flags could be used in the stateful PCE model
      to identify optional objects in the Path Computation State Report
      (PCRpt) <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, the Path Computation Update Request
      (PCUpd) <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and the LSP Initiate Request
      (PCInitiate) <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> messages.</t>
      <t>This document updates <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> concerning usage of
      the P and I flags as well as the handling of unknown objects in
      stateful PCEP message exchange.</t>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>
    The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
    "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be
    interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
    target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
    shown here.
        </t>

      </section>
    </section>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Overview</name>

      <t>Setting the P flag in the PCReq message to handle unknown objects 
  is as described in <xref target="RFC5440" section="7.2" sectionFormat="of"/>.
Further, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> defined the usage of the LSP Error Code TLV in the
      PCRpt message in response to a failed LSP Update Request via the PCUpd
      message (for example, due to an unsupported object or TLV).</t>
      <t>This document specifies the procedure of marking some objects as
      'optional to be processed' by the PCEP peer in the stateful PCEP
      messages. Furthermore, this document updates the procedure for handling
      unknown objects in stateful PCEP messages based on the P flag.</t>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Usage Example</name>
        <t>The PCRpt message is used to report the current state of an LSP. As
        part of the message, both the &lt;intended-attribute-list&gt; and
        &lt;actual-attribute-list&gt; are encoded (see <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>). For example, the &lt;intended-attribute-list&gt;
        could include the METRIC object to indicate a limiting constraint
        (Bound 'B' flag set) for the Path Delay Variation metric <xref target="RFC8233" format="default"/>. 
In some scenarios, it would be useful to indicate
        that this constraint can be relaxed by the PCE in case it
        cannot find a path. <!--Similarly in the case of an association group
        <xref target="RFC8697"/> such as Disjoint Association <xref
        target="RFC8800"/>, the PCE may need to completely relax the
        disjointness constraint in order to provide a path to all the LSPs
        that are part of the association.--> 
In these cases, it would be useful to mark
  the objects as 'optional' so they could be ignored by the PCEP peer.
Also, it would be useful for the PCEP speaker to learn
        if the PCEP peer has relaxed the constraint and ignored the processing
        of the PCEP object.</t>
        <t>Thus, this document specifies how the already existing P and I
        flags in the PCEP common object header could be used during the
        stateful PCEP message exchange. 
 The scope of how P and I flags are applied is defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and is unchanged by this document. Therefore, these flags can only be applied to an entire PCEP
 object; they cannot be applied at the granularity of optional TLVs encoded in the PCEP object.
</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>PCEP Extension</name>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV</name>
        <t>A PCEP speaker indicates its ability to support the handling of the
        P and I flags in the stateful PCEP message exchange during the PCEP
        initialization phase, as follows. During the PCEP initialization
        phase, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN object that contains
        the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, as defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>. A new flag, the R (RELAX) flag, is added to this
        TLV to indicate support for relaxing the processing of some
        objects via the use of the P and I flags in the PCEP common object
        header.</t>
        <t>R (RELAX bit - 17): If set to 1 by a PCEP Speaker, the R flag
        indicates that the PCEP Speaker is willing to handle the P and I flags
        in the PCEP common object header for the PCEP objects in the stateful
        PCEP messages. If the bit is unset, it indicates that the PCEP Speaker
        will not handle the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header
        for stateful PCE messages.</t>

        <t>The R flag <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set by both the PCC and PCE to indicate support for
        handling the P and I flags in the PCEP common object header to
        allow relaxing some constraints by marking objects as 'optional to
        process'. If the PCEP speaker does not set the R flag but receives PCEP
        objects with the P or I bits set, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> ignore the flags. <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> states that P and I flags of the PCEP objects
        are set to 0 on transmission and
        ignored on receipt. It fails to mention the behaviour of objects
        defined outside of <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, leading to ambiguity.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Handling of the P Flag</name>
        <section toc="default" numbered="true">
          <name>The PCRpt Message</name>
          <t>The P flag in the PCRpt message <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> allows a
          PCC to specify to a PCE whether the object must be taken into
          account by the PCE (during state maintenance, path computation, or
          re-optimisation) or is optional to process. When the P flag is set
          in the PCRpt message received on a PCEP session on which the R bit
          is set by both peers, the object <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be taken into account by the
          PCE. Conversely, when the P flag is cleared, the object is optional
          and the PCE can ignore it. The P flag for the mandatory
          objects, such as the LSP and the ERO (Explicit Route Object) object
          (intended path), <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set in the PCRpt message. If a mandatory
          object is received with the P flag set incorrectly according to the
          rules stated above, the receiving peer <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message
          with Error-Type=10 (Reception of an invalid object) and
          Error-value=1 (Reception of an object with P flag not set). On a
          PCEP session on which the R bit was set by both peers, the PCC
          <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> set the P flag by default, unless a local configuration or
          local policy indicates that some constraints (corresponding PCEP
          objects) can be marked as optional and could be ignored by the PCE
          or the object itself conveys informational parameters that can be
          safely ignored.</t>
          <section toc="default" numbered="true">
            <name>Delegation</name>
            <t>Delegation is an operation to grant a PCE temporary rights to
            modify a subset of parameters on one or more LSPs by a PCC as
            described in <xref target="RFC8051" format="default"/>. Note that for the delegated
            LSPs, the PCE can update and mark some objects as ignored even
            when the PCC has set the P flag during the delegation. Similarly,
            the PCE can update and mark some objects as a 'must to process'
            even when the PCC has not set the P flag during delegation.</t>

            <t>The PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> acknowledge this by sending the PCRpt message with
            the P flag set as per the PCE expectation for the corresponding
            object. If the PCC cannot accept the update message, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> react as
            per the processing rules of unacceptable update in <xref section="5.8.3" target="RFC8231" format="default"/>.</t>
          </section>
        </section>
        <section toc="default" numbered="true">
          <name>The PCUpd Message and the PCInitiate Message</name>
          <t>The P flag in the PCUpd message <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> and the
          PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> allows a PCE to specify
          to a PCC whether the object must be taken into account by the PCC
          (during path setup) or is optional to process. When the P flag is
          set in the PCUpd/PCInitiate message received on a PCEP session on
          which the R bit was set by both peers, the object <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be taken into
          account by the PCC. Conversely, when the P flag is cleared, the
          object is optional and the PCC can ignore it. The P flag for
          the mandatory objects -- such as the SRP (Stateful PCE Request
          Parameters), the LSP, and the ERO -- <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set in the
          PCUpd/PCInitiate message. If a mandatory object is received with the
          P flag set incorrectly according to the rules stated above, the
          receiving peer <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-Type=10
          (Reception of an invalid object) and Error-value=1 (Reception of an
          object with P flag not set). On a PCEP session in which both peers set the R
          bit, the PCE <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> set the P flag by default unless a local
          configuration/policy indicates that some constraints (corresponding
          PCEP objects) can be marked as optional and can be ignored by the
          PCC or the object itself conveys informational parameters that can
          be safely ignored.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Handling of the I Flag</name>
        <section toc="default" numbered="true">
          <name>The PCUpd Message</name>
          <t>The I flag in the PCUpd message <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> allows a
          PCE to indicate to a PCC whether or not an optional object was
          processed. The PCE <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include the ignored optional object in its
          update request and set the I flag to indicate that the optional
          object was ignored. When the I flag is cleared, the PCE indicates
          that the optional object was processed.</t>
          <t>Note that when a PCE is unable to find the path that meets all
          the constraints as per the PCEP object that cannot be ignored (i.e.
          the P flag is set), the PCUpd message <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> optionally include the
          PCEP objects that caused the path computation to fail along with the
          empty ERO.</t>
        </section>
        <section toc="default" numbered="true">
          <name>The PCRpt Message</name>
          <t>The I flag in the PCRpt message <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> allows a
          PCC to indicate to a PCE whether or not an optional object was
          processed in response to a PCUpd or PCInitiate message.
          The PCC <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> include the ignored
          optional object in its report and set the I flag to indicate that
          the optional object was ignored at PCC. When the I flag is cleared,
          the PCC indicates that the optional object was processed. The I flag
          has no meaning if the PCRpt message is not in response to a PCUpd or
          PCInitiate message (i.e., without the SRP object in the PCRpt
          message).</t>
          <t>Note that when a PCC is unable to set up a path that meets all
          the parameters as per the PCEP object that cannot be ignored (i.e.,
          the P flag is set), the PCRpt message <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> optionally include the
          PCEP objects that caused the path setup to fail along with the
          LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> indicating the reason
          for the failure.</t>
        </section>
        <section toc="default" numbered="true">
          <name>The PCInitiate Message</name>
          <t>The I flag has no meaning in the PCInitiate message <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>, so the I flag <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> set to 0 on transmission and
          ignored on receipt.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Unknown Object Handling</name>

<t>
   This document updates the handling of unknown objects in the stateful
   PCEP messages by setting the P flag in the common object
   header in a similar way as described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>.  That is, if a 
   PCEP speaker does not understand an object with the P flag set, or 
   if the PCEP speaker understands the object
   but decides to ignore the object, the entire stateful PCEP message
   <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be rejected, and the PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCErr message with Error-
   Type="Unknown Object" or "Not supported object" <xref target="RFC5440"/>.
If the P flag is not set, the PCEP
        speaker can ignore the object and continue with the message
        processing as defined.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> defined the LSP Error Code TLV to be carried
        in the PCRpt message in the LSP object to convey error information. This
        document does not change that procedure.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document specifies how the already existing P and I flags in the
      PCEP common object header could be used during stateful PCEP exchanges.
      It updates the unknown object error handling in stateful PCEP message
      exchange. On their own, these changes do not add any new security
      concerns. The security considerations identified in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> continue to apply.</t>
      <t>As per <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, it is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14> 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" format="default"/> as per the
      recommendations and best current practices described in <xref target="RFC9325" format="default"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> defined the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV
        and IANA created the "STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV Flag Field"
        registry to manage the value of the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV's
        Flag field. IANA has allocated a new bit in the
        registry, as follows:</t>

	<table>
	  <thead>
	    <tr>
	      <th>Bit</th>
	      <th>Description</th>
              <th>Reference</th>
	    </tr>
	  </thead>
	  <tbody>
	    <tr>
	      <td>17</td>
	      <td>RELAX</td>
              <td>RFC 9753</td>
	    </tr>
	  </tbody>
	</table>

      </section>
    </section>
    <section toc="default" numbered="true">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>An implementation supporting this document <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow
        configuration of the capability to support relaxation of constraints
        in the stateful PCEP message exchange. They <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> also allow
        configuration of related LSP constraints (or parameters) that are
        optional to process.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t>An implementation supporting this document <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> allow the
        operator to view the capability defined in this document. To serve
        this purpose, the PCEP YANG module <xref target="PCEP-YANG" format="default"/> could be extended in the future.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
        <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" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation
        verification requirements in addition to those already listed in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Requirements on Other Protocols</name>
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new
        requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>
      <section toc="default" numbered="true">
        <name>Impact on Network Operations</name>
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not have any impact on
        network operations in addition to those already listed in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>

    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655.xml"/>

        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8051.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8233.xml"/>
        <!--><?rfc include="reference.RFC.8697.xml"?>-->

	<!--><?rfc include="reference.RFC.8800.xml"?>-->

	<xi:include href="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.9325.xml"/>

<!-- [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30
Used long way for WiP since
it was missing editor role for Dhruv Dhody. -->

<reference anchor="PCEP-YANG" target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30">
   <front>
      <title>A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)</title>
      <author initials="D." surname="Dhody" fullname="Dhruv Dhody" role="editor">
         <organization>Huawei</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="V. P." surname="Beeram" fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram">
         <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      </author>
      <author initials="J." surname="Hardwick" fullname="Jonathan Hardwick">
         </author>
      <author initials="J." surname="Tantsura" fullname="Jeff Tantsura">
         <organization>Nvidia</organization>
      </author>
      <date month="January" day="26" year="2025" />
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30" />   
</reference>

      </references>
    </references>
    <section toc="default" numbered="false">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Jonathan Hardwick"/> for the discussion
      and suggestions around this document.</t>
      <t>Thanks to <contact fullname="Oscar Gonzalez de Dios"/>, <contact
      fullname="Mike Koldychev"/>, <contact fullname="Samuel Sidor"/>, and
      <contact fullname="Peng Shaofu"/> for their review comments.</t>
    </section>

    <section toc="default" numbered="false">
      <name>Contributors</name>

    <contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
	<postal><country>India</country></postal>
        <email>dhruv.ietf@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </contact>

    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
