RFC 9005
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
RFC 9005 π (Part 1 of 3)
Okay bestie, let's talk about RFC 9005! π The title is "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Associating Policies and Label Switched Paths (LSPs)," and it came out in March 2021. It's on the Standards Track (ISSN 2070-1721), so it's an official Internet standard π₯. The authors are S. Litkowski (Cisco Systems, Inc.), S. Sivabalan (Ciena), J. Tantsura (Juniper Networks), J. Hardwick (Metaswitch Networks), ζε (C. Li), and εδΈΊζζ―ζιε ¬εΈ (Huawei Technologies). The header doesn't list anything it obsoletes or updates, so there's no drama there π.
Abstract π
This doc adds a simple way to group Label Switched Paths (LSPs) under a shared policy, using an extension to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) β¨. With it, one PCEP speaker can tell its PCEP peer that a specific LSP belongs to a specific Policy Association Group (PAG). Main character energy π.
Status of This Memo π
This is an Internet Standards Track document π.
It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), which means it reflects the consensus of the IETF community. It got public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). For more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 7841 π§.
Want the latest status, errata, or a way to send feedback? Head to https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9005 π¦.
Copyright Notice πΈ
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as they stand on the publication date. Read these carefully, because they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document π«Ά. Code Components pulled out of this document have to include Simplified BSD License text, as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions, and they come with no warranty, as the Simplified BSD License describes.
Table of Contents π
1. Introduction
1.1. Requirements Language
2. Terminology
3. Motivation
3.1. Policy-Based Constraints
4. Overview
5. Policy Association Group
5.1. POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. ASSOCIATION Object Type Indicators
7.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
7.3. PCEP Errors
8. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
8.2. Information and Data Models
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring
8.4. Verifying Correct Operations
8.5. Requirements on Other Protocols
8.6. Impact on Network Operations
9. References
9.1. Normative References
9.2. Informative References
Appendix A. Example of Policy Parameters
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses1. Introduction π¦
Okay so [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP). It lets a Path Computation Client (PCC) talk to a Path Computation Element (PCE), or lets two PCEs talk to each other, based on the PCE architecture in [RFC4655]. [RFC5394] goes deeper on policy inside the PCE architecture and gives context for supporting PCE policy π.
"Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE" ([RFC8231]) adds a set of PCEP extensions for actively controlling Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels π₯. [RFC8281] covers setting up and tearing down PCE-initiated LSPs under the active stateful PCE model, and it doesn't need local configuration on the PCC, so the network can be super dynamic β¨. For now, those LSPs can be signaled with Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) or segment routed, as specified in [RFC8664] π.
[RFC8697] brings a generic way to group LSPs. Once they're grouped, you can link a set of LSPs to a set of attributes, like configuration parameters or behaviors π . It works for stateful PCE (active and passive modes) and for stateless PCE too.
This document specifies a PCEP extension that associates one or more LSPs with policies, using that generic association mechanism π.
A PCEP speaker might want to influence its PCEP peer on path selection and other policies π. This document describes a PCEP extension for associating policies by creating a Policy Association Group (PAG) and encoding that association in PCEP messages. The spec applies to both stateful and stateless PCEP sessions π.
Note that the actual policy definitions and their parameters are out of scope for this document π.
1.1. Requirements Language π
Okay this part is important! The BCP 14 key words are "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL". They get interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174], but only when they show up in all capitals, exactly like that π«Ά.
2. Terminology π§
Here's the terminology used in this document, bestie β¨:
- Association parameters: As described in [RFC8697], the mandatory fields Association Type, Association ID, and Association Source in the ASSOCIATION object together uniquely identify the association group. If the optional TLVs (Global Association Source or Extended Association ID) are included, they're used together with those mandatory fields to uniquely identify the association group π₯.
- Association information: As described in [RFC8697], the ASSOCIATION object can include other optional TLVs, depending on the Association Types, that carry "information" about the association π .
- LSR: Label Switching Router πΈ
- MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching πΈ
- PAG: Policy Association Group πΈ
- PAT: Policy Association Type πΈ
- PCC: Path Computation Client. Any client application that asks a Path Computation Element to do a path computation π¦.
- PCE: Path Computation Element. An entity (a component, application, or network node) that can compute a network path or route based on a network graph and apply computational constraints π.
- PCEP: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol π
3. Motivation π
Paths computed with a PCE can be hit with different policies at both the PCE and the PCC. For example, in a centralized TE scenario, network operators might instantiate LSPs and specify policies for traffic accounting, path monitoring, telemetry, and so on, for some LSPs through the stateful PCE π. A PCC could also request a user-specific or service-specific policy to be applied at the PCE, like a constraints relaxation policy, to hit optimal QoS and resiliency levels π₯.
PCEP speakers can use the generic mechanism of [RFC8697] to associate a set of LSPs with a policy, without needing to know the details of that policy π§ . This simplifies network operations, avoids frequent software upgrades, and makes it way faster to roll out new policies β¨.
PAG Y
{Service-Specific Policy
for constraint
Monitor LSP relaxation}
| |
| PAG X PCReq/PCRpt |
V {Monitor LSP} {PAG Y} V
+-----+ ----------------> +-----+
_ _ _ _ _ _| PCE | | | PCE |
| +-----+ | ----------> +-----+
| PCInitiate/PCUpd | | PCReq/PCRpt
|{PAG X} | | {PAG Y}
| | |
| .-----. | | .-----.
| ( ) | +----+ ( )
| .--( )--. | |PCC1|--.--( )--.
V ( ) | +----+ ( )
+---+ ( ) | ( )
|PCC|----( (G)MPLS network ) +----+ ( (G)MPLS network )
+---+ ( ) |PCC2|------( )
PAG X ( ) +----+ ( )
{Monitor '--( )--' '--( )--'
LSP} ( ) ( )
'-----' '-----'
Case 1: Policy requested by PCE Case 2: Policy requested by
and enforced by PCC PCC and enforced by
PCE
Figure 1: Sample Use Cases for Carrying Policies over PCEP3.1. Policy-Based Constraints πΈ
Picture this: in a policy-enabled path computation framework [RFC5394], path computation policies can be applied at a PCC, a PCE, or both π . A Label Switching Router (LSR) with a policy-enabled PCC can receive:
- A service request through signaling, including over a Network-Network Interface (NNI) or User-Network Interface (UNI) reference point π‘.
- A configuration request over a management interface to set up a service π οΈ.
The PCC can apply user-specific or service-specific policies to decide how path selection should be constrained. That means figuring out which constraints, diversities, optimization criteria, and constraint-relaxation strategies to use, so the service LSP(s) have a better shot at getting established and giving the QoS and resilience against network failures that they need π―. These user-specific or service-specific policies get applied at the PCC, then passed to the PCE along with the path computation request in the form of constraints [RFC5394] π¦.
The PCEP speaker can use the generic mechanism from [RFC8697] to associate a set of LSPs with user-specific or service-specific policies. This would simplify the path computation message exchanges in PCEP πβ¨.
4. Overview β¨
okay bestie, so here's the big picture π¦ As per [RFC8697], LSPs get linked up with other LSPs they interact with by being dropped into a common association group. Grouping can also connect LSPs to the policies attached to them π Like [RFC8697] explains, the association group is uniquely identified by the combo of Association Type, Association ID, Association Source, and (if present) Global Association Source or Extended Association ID π This doc adds a new Association Type called "Policy Association" with value 3, built on the generic ASSOCIATION object. This new type is called "Policy Association Type" (PAT) β¨
[RFC8697] gives us the capability advertisement for Association Types through an ASSOC-Type-List TLV that rides inside an OPEN object π§ This capability exchange for the PAT MUST be done before using the Policy Association. So a PCEP speaker MUST include the PAT in its ASSOC-Type-List TLV and MUST receive the same from the PCEP peer before using the PAG in PCEP messages. No skipping the handshake, bestie π
The Policy Association Type (3) is operator configured (as specified in [RFC8697]). That means the operator manually creates the association on the PCEP peers, and an LSP in that association gets conveyed via PCEP messages to the peer π There's no need to send an explicit Operator-configured Association Range, since it could only artificially limit the available Association IDs π ββοΈ So for the Policy Association Type, the Operator-configured Association Range MUST NOT be set and MUST be ignored if received. Period π
A PAG can have one or more LSPs πΈ The association parameters (Association Identifier, Policy Association Type (PAT), and the Association Source IP address) are manually configured by the operator and are used to identify the PAG as described in [RFC8697]. The Global Association Source and Extended Association ID MAY also be included β¨
Now the processing rules. As per Section 6.4 of [RFC8697], if a PCEP speaker does not support this Policy Association Type, it would return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-value 1 "Association type is not supported" π The PAG and the policy MUST be configured on the PCEP peers as per the operator-configured association procedures. Everything after that is handled as per Section 6.4 of [RFC8697]. And if a PCE speaker gets a PAG in a PCEP message but the Policy Association information isn't configured, it MUST return a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-value 4 "Association unknown" π
Associating one LSP with multiple policy groups is allowed from a protocol perspective 𧩠however, there's no assurance that the PCEP speaker will actually be able to apply multiple policies, so no promises there. If a PCEP speaker does not support handling multiple policies for an LSP, it MUST NOT add the LSP into the association group and MUST return a PCErr with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-value 7 "Cannot join the association group" π₯
5. Policy Association Group
Association groups and their memberships are defined using the ASSOCIATION object defined in [RFC8697] π There are two object types, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. The ASSOCIATION object includes an "Association type" field that tells you what kind of association group it is, and this document adds a brand new one: the Policy Association Type (PAT) π
A PAG may carry optional TLVs, including but not limited to:
- POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV: used to communicate opaque information that's useful for applying the policy, described in Section 5.1.
- VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV: used to communicate arbitrary vendor-specific behavioral information, described in [RFC7470].
5.1. POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV
The ASSOCIATION object (for PAT) can carry an optional POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV with opaque information that's needed to apply the policy at the PCEP peer π§ Sometimes, to apply a PCE policy successfully, you also need to attach some policy parameters that get evaluated. This TLV is where those parameters live π«Ά It can hold one or more policy-related parameters. The encoding format and the order MUST be known to the PCEP peers, and this could be sorted out when the policy (and its association parameters) get configured for the PAG π The TLV format follows the usual PCEP TLV format, as defined in [RFC5440] and shown in Figure 2.
Only one POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV can be carried, and only the first occurrence is processed. Any others MUST be ignored π ββοΈ
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=48 | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
// Policy Parameters //
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+Figure 2: The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV Format π
The POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV type is 48, and it has a variable length. The Value field is variable and padded to a 4-byte alignment, but padding isn't included in the Length field π The PCEP peer implementation needs to know the encoding format, order, and meaning of the policy parameters well in advance, based on the policy. Here's the fun bit: from the protocol's point of view, this data is opaque, so it can carry parameters in any format that the PCEP peers understand and that's associated with the policy π€·ββοΈ The exact use of this TLV is beyond the scope of this document. Examples are included for illustration purposes in Appendix A β¨
If the PCEP peer doesn't know about the policy parameters associated with the policy and it receives the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, it MUST reject the PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-value 12 "Not expecting policy parameters" π And if at least one parameter in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV that the PCEP speaker receives is considered unacceptable in the context of the associated policy (for example, an out-of-range value or a badly encoded value), the PCEP speaker MUST reject the PCEP message and send a PCErr message with Error-Type 26 "Association Error" and Error-value 13 "Unacceptable policy parameters" π
Note that vendor-specific behavioral information is encoded in the VENDOR-INFORMATION-TLV, which can be used alongside this TLV π¦
6. Security Considerations
The security considerations described in [RFC8697], [RFC8231], [RFC5394], and [RFC5440] apply to the extensions described in this document as well π Especially: a malicious PCEP speaker could be spoofed and used as an attack vector by creating spurious Policy Associations, as described in [RFC8697]. Also, as [RFC8697] describes, a spurious LSP can have policies that are inconsistent with those of the legitimate LSPs in the group, which can cause problems in how the policy gets handled for the legit LSPs π It should be noted that a Policy Association could give an adversary the chance to eavesdrop on the relationship between the LSPs π [RFC8697] suggests that implementations and operators use indirect values to hide any sensitive business relationships π«£ So securing the PCEP session using Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253], as per the recommendations and best current practices in BCP 195 [RFC7525], is RECOMMENDED π
Further, extra care needs to be taken by the implementation with respect to the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV while decoding, verifying, and applying these policy variables π¨ This TLV parsing could be exploited by an attacker, so extra care must be taken when configuring a Policy Association that uses the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, and making sure the data is easy to parse and verify before use. Getting agreement among all relevant PCEP peers on the format and layout of the policy parameters information is key for correct operations π The parser for POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV is especially sensitive, since it's opaque to PCEP and can carry data with many different internal structures and formats. The choice of decoder depends on the extra metadata associated with the policy, so there's additional risk of using the wrong decoder and getting garbage results ποΈ Using standard and well-known policy formats could help alleviate those risks πΈ
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. ASSOCIATION Object Type Indicators
This document defines a new Association Type in the subregistry "ASSOCIATION Type Field" of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry, which was originally defined in [RFC8697] π
+=======+====================+===========+
| Value | Name | Reference |
+=======+====================+===========+
| 3 | Policy Association | RFC 9005 |
+-------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 17.2. PCEP TLV Type Indicators
The following TLV Type Indicator value has been registered within the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry π
+=======+=======================+===========+
| Value | Description | Reference |
+=======+=======================+===========+
| 48 | POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV | RFC 9005 |
+-------+-----------------------+-----------+
Table 27.3. PCEP Errors
This document defines new Error-values for Error-Type 26 "Association Error" defined in [RFC8697] β¨ IANA has allocated new error values within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry, as follows π
+============+===================+===================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning | Error-value | Reference |
+============+===================+===================+===========+
| 26 | Association Error | | [RFC8697] |
+------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| | | 12: Not expecting | RFC 9005 |
| | | policy parameters | |
+------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------+
| | | 13: Unacceptable | RFC 9005 |
| | | policy parameters | |
+------------+-------------------+-------------------+-----------+
Table 38. Manageability Considerations
8.1. Control of Function and Policy
An operator MUST be allowed to configure the Policy Associations at PCEP peers and associate them with the LSPs π«Ά They MAY also allow configuration of related policy parameters, and provide information on the encoding format and order needed to parse the associated POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV π§
8.2. Information and Data Models π
Okay so [RFC7420] is where the PCEP MIB lives, and this doc adds zero new MIB objects. Nothing new to see here, bestie π
The PCEP YANG module is defined in [PCE-PCEP-YANG]. That module supports associations as defined in [RFC8697], so it already speaks Policy Association Groups fluently π
An implementation SHOULD allow the operator to view the PAG configured. Further implementation SHOULD allow one to view associations reported by each peer and the current set of LSPs in the PAG. π
8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring π
The mechanisms in this document don't add any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements on top of what's already listed in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. So the existing checks still carry the vibe π
8.4. Verifying Correct Operations π
You can check that a policy is working by monitoring the parameters described in [RFC5440] and [RFC8231]. A PCEP implementation SHOULD provide information on failed path computation due to applying policy and log error events, e.g., parsing failure for a POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV. Logs are your receipts, periodt π§Ύβ¨
8.5. Requirements on Other Protocols π€
The mechanisms in this document don't add any new requirements on other protocols. No drama for the neighbours π«Ά
8.6. Impact on Network Operations π
The mechanisms in this document have no impact on network operations beyond what's already listed in [RFC5440], [RFC8231], and [RFC8281]. Quiet glow-up, no chaos πΈ
9. References π
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[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>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8697] Minei, I., Crabbe, E., Sivabalan, S., Ananthakrishnan, H.,
Dhody, D., and Y. Tanaka, "Path Computation Element
Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Establishing
Relationships between Sets of Label Switched Paths
(LSPs)", RFC 8697, DOI 10.17487/RFC8697, January 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8697>.9.2. Informative References
[PCE-PCEP-YANG]
Dhody, D., Ed., Hardwick, J., Beeram, V., and J. Tantsura,
"A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element
Communications Protocol (PCEP)", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16, 22 February
2021,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16>.
[RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
[RFC5394] Bryskin, I., Papadimitriou, D., Berger, L., and J. Ash,
"Policy-Enabled Path Computation Framework", RFC 5394,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5394, December 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5394>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J.
Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module",
RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7420>.
[RFC7470] Zhang, F. and A. Farrel, "Conveying Vendor-Specific
Constraints in the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol", RFC 7470, DOI 10.17487/RFC7470, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7470>.
[RFC7525] Sheffer, Y., Holz, R., and P. Saint-Andre,
"Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer
Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
(DTLS)", BCP 195, RFC 7525, DOI 10.17487/RFC7525, May
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7525>.
[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>.
[RFC8664] Sivabalan, S., Filsfils, C., Tantsura, J., Henderickx, W.,
and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8664,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8664, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8664>.Appendix A. Example of Policy Parameters π§
Let's do an example! Say there's a monitoring and telemetry policy, P1, that depends on a profile (GOLD/SILVER/BRONZE) set by the operator. The PCEP peers need to know about policy P1 (and its characteristics) ahead of time, plus the fact that the policy parameter will carry the profile as a type string in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV. For instance, LSP1 could encode the PAG with the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV using the string "GOLD". Gold star, literally β
Here's another one. The path computation at the PCE could depend on when the LSP was configured at the PCC. For such a policy, P2, the timestamp can be encoded in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, and the exact encoding could be the 64-bit timestamp format as defined in [RFC5905]. Time is a whole vibe β°
The first example has a single field in the POLICY-PARAMETERS-TLV, but you can include multiple fields. The catch is that the exact order, encoding format, and meanings need to be known in advance at the PCEP peers. Everyone has to be on the same page, no surprises ππ
Acknowledgments π«Ά
We would like to acknowledge and thank Santiago Alvarez, Zafar Ali, Luis Tomotaki, Victor Lopez, Rob Shakir, and Clarence Filsfils for working on earlier draft versions with similar motivation. Main character energy for all of you π
Special thanks to the authors of [RFC8697]. This document borrowed some of its text. The authors would also like to thank Aijun Wang, Peng Shuping, and Gyan Mishra for their useful comments π·
Thanks to Hariharan Ananthakrishnan for shepherding this document. Thanks to Deborah Brungard for providing comments and being the responsible AD for this document π
Thanks to Nic Leymann for the RTGDIR review π¦
Thanks to Benjamin Kaduk and Murray Kucherawy for their comments during the IESG review π
Contributors π
The following individuals have contributed extensively:
Mahendra Singh Negi
RtBrick Inc
N-17L, 18th Cross Rd, HSR Layout
Bangalore 560102
Karnataka
India
Email: mahend.ietf@gmail.com
Dhruv Dhody
Huawei Technologies
Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield
Bangalore 560066
Karnataka
India
Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.comThe following individuals have contributed text that was incorporated:
Qin Wu
Huawei Technologies
101 Software Avenue, Yuhua District
Nanjing
Jiangsu, 210012
China
Email: sunseawq@huawei.com
Xian Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen
518129
China
Email: zhang.xian@huawei.com
Udayasree Palle
Email: udayasreereddy@gmail.com
Mike Koldychev
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Canada
Email: mkoldych@cisco.comAuthors' Addresses π
Stephane Litkowski
Cisco Systems, Inc.
11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux
France
Email: slitkows@cisco.com
Siva Sivabalan
Ciena
385 Terry Fox Drive
Kanata Ontario K2K 0L1
Canada
Email: msiva282@gmail.com
Jeff Tantsura
Juniper Networks
Email: jefftant.ietf@gmail.com
Jonathan Hardwick
Metaswitch Networks
33 Genotin Road
Enfield
United Kingdom
Email: Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com
Cheng Li
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Campus, No. 156 Beiqing Rd.
Beijing
100095
China
Email: c.l@huawei.com
Additional contact information:
ζε
δΈε½
100095
εδΊ¬
εδΈΊεη ζ
εδΈΊζζ―ζιε
¬εΈπ¦ where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc9005 2021-03
- π girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms