Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Request for Comments: 8356 Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 D. King
Category: Standards Track Lancaster University
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
March 2018
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Dhody
Request for Comments: 8356 Huawei Technologies
Updates: 5440 D. King
Category: Standards Track Lancaster University
ISSN: 2070-1721 A. Farrel
Juniper Networks
March 2018
Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
路径计算元素通信协议（PCEP）的实验码点分配
Abstract
摘要
IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object, and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review.
IANA为路径计算元素通信协议（PCEP）参数（消息、对象、TLV）赋值。IANA建立了一个顶级注册表，包含所有PCEP代码点和子注册表。此顶级注册表包含PCEP消息、对象和TLV类型的子注册表。每个子注册中心的分配策略是IETF审查。
This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies for these three registries to mark some of the codepoints as assigned for Experimental Use.
本文档通过更改这三个注册中心的分配策略来更新RFC 5440，以将一些代码点标记为分配供实验使用。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8356.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8356.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2018 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
本文件可能包含2008年11月10日之前发布或公开的IETF文件或IETF贡献中的材料。控制某些材料版权的人员可能未授予IETF信托允许在IETF标准流程之外修改此类材料的权利。在未从控制此类材料版权的人员处获得充分许可的情况下，不得在IETF标准流程之外修改本文件，也不得在IETF标准流程之外创建其衍生作品，除了将其格式化以RFC形式发布或将其翻译成英语以外的其他语言。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Experimental PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Experimental PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Experimental PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Experimental PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Experimental PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Experimental PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.1. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6.2. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.3. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.
路径计算元件通信协议（PCEP）[RFC5440]为路径计算元件（PCE）提供响应于路径计算客户端（PCC）请求执行路径计算的机制。
Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [RFC8281] describes the setup, maintenance, and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.
此外，为了支持[RFC8051]中描述的用例，[RFC8231]指定了一组对PCEP的扩展，以通过PCEP实现MPLS-TE和GMPLS LSP的状态控制。[RFC8281]描述了在有状态PCE模型下PCE启动的LSP的设置、维护和拆卸。
In Section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub-registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these codepoints but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately stable.
在[RFC5440]的第9节中，IANA为PCEP协议参数（消息、对象、TLV）赋值。IANA建立了一个顶级注册表，包含所有PCEP代码点和子注册表。此顶级注册表包含PCEP消息、对象和TLV类型的子注册表。每个子注册中心的分配策略为IETF Review[RFC8126]。此外，早期分配[RFC7120]为这些代码点的分配提供了一定的自由度，但保留用于被认为适当稳定的功能。
Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important that the value not collide with existing codepoints or any future allocations.
最近，PCE技术有了快速的发展，这就增加了对PCEP实验的需求。为了实际测试或试验新函数，经常需要使用某种数字或常量，即使在封闭环境中进行测试也是如此。为了运行实验，重要的是该值不要与现有的代码点或任何未来的分配冲突。
This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies for these three registries to mark some of the codepoints as assigned for Experimental Use. As stated in [RFC3692], experiments using these codepoints are not intended to be used in general deployments, and due care must be taken to ensure that two experiments using the same codepoints are not run in the same environment. See [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of experimental codepoints (also referred to as "experimental and testing numbers").
本文档通过更改这三个注册表的分配策略来更新[RFC5440]，以将一些代码点标记为分配给实验使用。如[RFC3692]中所述，使用这些代码点的实验不打算用于一般部署，必须注意确保使用相同代码点的两个实验不在同一环境中运行。关于实验代码点（也称为“实验和测试编号”）使用的进一步讨论，请参见[RFC3692]。
PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in Section 6.1.
PCEP消息类型的范围为0到255。如第6.1节所述，本文件将消息类型252-255留作实验之用。
PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as described in Section 6.2.
PCEP对象由0到255范围内的值标识。本文件为第6.2节所述的实验留出了对象标识符248-255。
PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described in Section 6.2.
PCEP TLV类型代码在0到65535之间。如第6.2节所述，本文件将对象标识符65504-65535留作实验之用。
A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message that it does not recognize reacts by sending a PCErr message with Error-Type=2 (capability not supported) per Section 6.9 of [RFC5440].
根据[RFC5440]第6.9节，接收其无法识别的实验性PCEP消息的PCEP实现通过发送错误类型为2（不支持功能）的PCErr消息作出反应。
If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental object, then the way it handles this situation depends on the message type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of [RFC5440]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g., [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a Path Computation LSP Update Request (PCUpd) message).
如果PCEP扬声器不理解或不支持实验对象，则其处理这种情况的方式取决于消息类型。例如，PCE根据[RFC5440]的规则处理路径计算请求（PCReq）消息中的未知对象。可以指定特定于消息的行为（例如，[RFC8231]定义PCC处理路径计算LSP更新请求（PCUpd）消息中未知对象的规则）。
As per Section 7.1 of [RFC5440], an unknown experimental PCEP TLV would be ignored.
根据[RFC5440]第7.1节，未知的实验PCEP TLV将被忽略。
IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry at <http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
IANA在以下位置维护“路径计算元素协议（PCEP）编号”注册表：<http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep>.
Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP Messages" sub-registry.
在PCEP号码注册表中，IANA维护“PCEP消息”子注册表。
IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows:
IANA已将此注册表的注册程序更改为：
0-251 IETF Review 252-255 Experimental Use
0-251 IETF回顾252-255实验使用
IANA has also marked the values 252-255 in the registry accordingly.
IANA还相应地在注册表中标记了252-255值。
Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP Objects" sub-registry.
在PCEP编号注册表中，IANA维护“PCEP对象”子注册表。
IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows:
IANA已将此注册表的注册程序更改为：
0-247 IETF Review 248-255 Experimental Use
0-247 IETF审查248-255实验使用
IANA has also marked the values 248-255 in the registry accordingly, and Object-Types 0-15 have been marked for Experimental Use.
IANA还相应地在注册表中标记了值248-255，并且对象类型0-15已标记为实验使用。
Within the PCEP Numbers registry, IANA maintains the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" sub-registry.
在PCEP编号注册表中，IANA维护“PCEP TLV类型指示器”子注册表。
IANA has changed the registration procedure for this registry to read as follows:
IANA已将此注册表的注册程序更改为：
0-65503 IETF Review 65504-65535 Experimental Use
0-65503 IETF审查65504-65535实验使用
IANA has also marked the values 65504-65535 in the registry accordingly.
IANA还相应地在注册表中标记了值65504-65535。
This document does not introduce any new security considerations to the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the specific security measures.
本文件未对现有协议引入任何新的安全注意事项。有关具体安全措施的更多详细信息，请参阅[RFC5440]。
[RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental codepoints introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, accidentally, from another experiment. Further, an implementation accepting experimental codepoints needs to consider the security aspects of the experimental extensions. [RFC6709] provides various design considerations for protocol extensions (including those designated as experimental).
[RFC3692]声称，实验性代码点的存在没有引入新的安全考虑。然而，接受实验性代码点的实现需要注意如何解析和处理消息、对象和TLV，以防它们意外地来自另一个实验。此外，接受实验代码点的实现需要考虑实验扩展的安全方面。[RFC6709]提供了协议扩展的各种设计注意事项（包括指定为实验性的）。
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC3692]Narten，T.，“分配被认为有用的实验和测试数字”，BCP 82，RFC 3692，DOI 10.17487/RFC3692，2004年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3692>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC5440]Vasseur，JP.，Ed.和JL。Le Roux主编，“路径计算元件（PCE）通信协议（PCEP）”，RFC 5440，DOI 10.17487/RFC5440，2009年3月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8126]Cotton，M.，Leiba，B.，和T.Narten，“在RFC中编写IANA考虑事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 8126，DOI 10.17487/RFC8126，2017年6月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8231]Crabbe，E.，Minei，I.，Medved，J.，和R.Varga，“有状态PCE的路径计算元素通信协议（PCEP）扩展”，RFC 8231，DOI 10.17487/RFC82312017年9月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.
[RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC8281]Crabbe，E.，Minei，I.，Sivabalan，S.，和R.Varga，“有状态PCE模型中PCE启动LSP设置的路径计算元素通信协议（PCEP）扩展”，RFC 8281，DOI 10.17487/RFC8281，2017年12月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281>.
[RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC6709]Carpenter，B.，Aboba，B.，Ed.，和S.Cheshire，“协议扩展的设计考虑”，RFC 6709，DOI 10.17487/RFC6709，2012年9月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6709>.
[RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC7120]Cotton，M.，“标准轨道代码点的早期IANA分配”，BCP 100，RFC 7120，DOI 10.17487/RFC7120，2014年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7120>.
[RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
[RFC8051]Zhang，X.，Ed.和I.Minei，Ed.“有状态路径计算元素（PCE）的适用性”，RFC 8051，DOI 10.17487/RFC8051，2017年1月<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8051>.
Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an Experimental codepoint range only in the message, object, and TLV sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an experiment finds that it wants to use a new codepoint in another PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new experimental object or TLV instead.
根据PCE工作组的反馈，决定只在消息、对象和TLV子注册表中分配一个实验性的代码点范围。这个决定的理由是，如果一个实验发现它想要在另一个PCEP子注册表中使用一个新的代码点，它可以使用一个新的实验对象或TLV来实现相同的功能。
Acknowledgments
致谢
The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien Meuric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their feedback and suggestions.
作者要感谢Ramon Casellas、Jeff Tantsura、Julien Meuria、Lou Berger、Michael Shroff和Andrew Dolganow的反馈和建议。
We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this document and providing comments with text suggestions.
我们要感谢Jonathan Hardwick对本文件的指导，并提供了文字建议。
Thanks to Brian Carpenter for the GENART review. Thanks to Ben Niven-Jenkins and Scott Bradner for RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews respectively.
感谢Brian Carpenter的GENART评论。感谢Ben Niven Jenkins和Scott Bradner分别对RTGDIR和OPSDIR进行了审查。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 India
印度卡纳塔克邦班加罗尔Whitefield Bangalore Dhruv Dhody华为技术分部，邮编560066
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
Daniel King Lancaster University United Kingdom
英国兰开斯特大学丹尼尔·金
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks United Kingdom
Adrian Farrel Juniper Networks英国
EMail: afarrel@juniper.net
EMail: afarrel@juniper.net