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

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629-xhtml.ent">

<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-14" number="9059" ipr="trust200902" submissionType="IETF" category="std" consensus="true" obsoletes="" updates="" xml:lang="en" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" tocInclude="true" version="3">

  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.5.0 -->
  <!-- Generated by id2xml 1.5.0 on 2020-02-01T01:23:15Z -->

  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP for Associated Bidirectional LSPs">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
    <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9059"/>
    <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Canada</street>
        </postal>
        <email>rgandhi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Colby Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth">
      <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
      <address>
        <email>cbarth@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Bin Wen" initials="B." surname="Wen">
      <organization>Comcast</organization>
      <address>
        <email>Bin_Wen@cable.comcast.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="June" year="2021"/>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>

      <t>This document defines Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
      (PCEP) extensions for grouping two unidirectional MPLS-TE Label Switched
      Paths (LSPs), one in each direction in the network, into an associated
      bidirectional LSP.  These PCEP extensions can be applied either using a
      stateful PCE for both PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or using
      a stateless PCE. The PCEP procedures defined are applicable
      to the LSPs using RSVP-TE for signaling.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section anchor="sect-1" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> describes the Path Computation Element
      Communication Protocol (PCEP) as a communication mechanism between a Path Computation
      Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCC,
      that enables computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) - Traffic
      Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs).</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> specifies extensions to PCEP to enable
      stateful control of MPLS-TE LSPs. It describes two modes of operation:
      passive stateful PCE and active stateful PCE. In <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, the focus is on active stateful PCE where LSPs are
      provisioned on the PCC and control over them is delegated to a PCE.
      Further, <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> describes the setup, maintenance, and
      teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs for the stateful PCE model.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/> introduces a generic mechanism for creating a grouping of LSPs.
      This grouping can then be used to define associations between
      sets of LSPs or between a set of LSPs and a set of attributes,
      and it is equally applicable to the stateful PCE (active and
      passive modes) and the stateless PCE.</t>
      <t>The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) requirements document <xref target="RFC5654" format="default"/> specifies that 
      "MPLS-TP <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> support unidirectional, co-routed bidirectional, and
       associated bidirectional point-to-point transport paths".
      <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/> defines RSVP
      signaling extensions for binding forward and reverse unidirectional LSPs 
      into an associated bidirectional LSP. The fast
      reroute (FRR) procedures for associated bidirectional LSPs are described
      in <xref target="RFC8537" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>This document defines PCEP extensions for grouping two unidirectional
      MPLS-TE LSPs into an associated bidirectional LSP for both single-sided
      and double-sided initiation cases either when using a stateful PCE for both
      PCE-initiated and PCC-initiated LSPs or when using a stateless
      PCE. The procedures defined are applicable to the LSPs using Resource
      Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for signaling <xref target="RFC3209" format="default"/>.
      Specifically, this document defines two new Association Types, Single-Sided  
      Bidirectional LSP Association and Double-Sided Bidirectional 
      LSP Association, as well as the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV, to carry 
      additional information for the association.</t>
      <t>The procedure for associating two unidirectional Segment Routing (SR) paths 
      to form an associated bidirectional SR path is defined in 
      <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" format="default"/> and is outside the scope of 
      this document.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-2" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Conventions Used in This Document</name>
      <section anchor="sect-2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Key Word Definitions</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 anchor="sect-2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The reader is assumed to be familiar with the terminology defined
        in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-3" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Overview</name>
      <t>As shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp" />, forward and reverse unidirectional LSPs can be grouped
      to form an associated bidirectional LSP. Node A is the ingress node for LSP1 and
      egress node for LSP2, whereas node D is the ingress node 
      for LSP2 and egress node for LSP1. There are two methods of
      initiating the Bidirectional LSP Association, single-sided and
      double-sided, as defined in <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/> and described in
      the following sections.</t>
      <figure anchor="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp">
        <name>Example of Associated Bidirectional LSP</name>
        <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
            LSP1 -->          LSP1 -->          LSP1 -->
   +-----+           +-----+           +-----+           +-----+
   |  A  +-----------+  B  +-----------+  C  +-----------+  D  |
   +-----+           +--+--+           +--+--+           +-----+
            <-- LSP2    |                 |     <-- LSP2
                        |                 |  
                        |                 |  
                     +--+--+           +--+--+
                     |  E  +-----------+  F  |
                     +-----+           +-----+
                             <-- LSP2
]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <section anchor="sect-3.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Single-Sided Initiation</name>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/>, in the single-sided case,
        the bidirectional tunnel is provisioned only on one endpoint node
        (PCC) of the tunnel. Both endpoint nodes act as PCCs. 
        Both forward and reverse LSPs of this tunnel are
        initiated with the Association Type set to "Single-Sided Bidirectional
        LSP Association" on the originating endpoint node. The forward and
        reverse LSPs are identified in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group
        TLV of their PCEP ASSOCIATION objects.</t>
        <t>The originating endpoint node signals the properties for the reverse
        LSP in the RSVP REVERSE_LSP object <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/> of the
        forward LSP Path message. The remote endpoint node then creates the
        corresponding reverse tunnel and reverse LSP, and it then signals the reverse LSP in response
        to the received RSVP-TE Path message. Similarly, the remote endpoint node
        deletes the reverse LSP when it receives the RSVP-TE message to delete the forward LSP
        <xref target="RFC3209" format="default"/>.</t>

        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8537" format="default"/>, for fast reroute bypass
        tunnel assignment, the LSP starting from the originating endpoint node is
        identified as the forward LSP of the single-sided initiated
        bidirectional LSP.</t>
        <section anchor="sect-3.1.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>PCE-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
          <figure anchor="ure-example-of-pce-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp">
            <name>Example of PCE-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
                                +-----+
                                | PCE |
                                +-----+
    Initiates:                   |    \      
    Tunnel 1 (F)                 |     \     
    (LSP1 (F, 0), LSP2 (R, 0))   |      \    
    Association #1               v       \   
                              +-----+    +-----+
                              |  A  |    |  D  |
                              +-----+    +-----+


                                +-----+
                                | PCE |
                                +-----+
    Reports:                     ^    ^      Reports:
    Tunnel 1 (F)                 |     \     Tunnel 2 (F)
    (LSP1 (F, P1), LSP2 (R, P2)) |      \    (LSP2 (F, P3))
    Association #1               |       \   Association #1
                              +-----+    +-----+
                              |  A  |    |  D  |
                              +-----+    +-----+

  Legend: F = Forward LSP, R = Reverse LSP, (0,P1,P2,P3) = PLSP-IDs
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Using partial topology from <xref target="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp"/>, as shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-pce-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp"/>, the forward Tunnel 1 and both forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 are initiated on the originating endpoint node
       A by the PCE.  The PCEP-specific LSP identifiers (PLSP-IDs) used are P1 and P2 on the originating endpoint node A
       and P3 on the remote endpoint node D.
       The originating endpoint node A reports Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 
       to the PCE. The endpoint (PCC) node D reports Tunnel 2 and LSP2 to the PCE. 
          </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-3.1.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>PCC-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
          <figure anchor="ure-example-of-pcc-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp">
            <name>Example of PCC-Initiated Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
                                +-----+
                                | PCE |
                                +-----+
    Reports/Delegates:           ^    ^      Reports:
    Tunnel 1 (F)                 |     \     Tunnel 2 (F)
    (LSP1 (F, P1), LSP2 (R, P2)) |      \    (LSP2 (F, P3))
    Association #2               |       \   Association #2
                              +-----+    +-----+
                              |  A  |    |  D  |
                              +-----+    +-----+

  Legend: F = Forward LSP, R = Reverse LSP, (P1,P2,P3) = PLSP-IDs
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Using partial topology from <xref target="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp"/>, as shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-pcc-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp"/>, the forward Tunnel 1 and both forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 are initiated on the originating endpoint node
       A (the originating PCC). 
       The PLSP-IDs used are P1 and P2 on the originating endpoint node A
       and P3 on the remote endpoint node D.
       The originating endpoint (PCC) node A may delegate the
       forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 to the PCE. 
       The originating endpoint node A reports Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1 and reverse LSP2 
       to the PCE. The endpoint (PCC) node D reports
       Tunnel 2 and LSP2 to the PCE. 
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-3.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Double-Sided Initiation</name>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/>, in the double-sided case,
        the bidirectional tunnel is provisioned on both endpoint nodes (PCCs)
        of the tunnel. The forward and reverse LSPs of this tunnel are
        initiated with the Association Type set to "Double-Sided Bidirectional
        LSP Association" on both endpoint nodes. The forward and reverse LSPs
        are identified in the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV of their
        ASSOCIATION objects.</t>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8537" format="default"/>, for fast reroute bypass
        tunnel assignment, the LSP with the higher source address <xref target="RFC3209" format="default"/> is identified as the forward LSP of the
        double-sided initiated bidirectional LSP.</t>
        <section anchor="sect-3.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>PCE-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
          <figure anchor="ure-example-of-pce-initiated-double-sided-bidirectional-lsp">
            <name>Example of PCE-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
                            +-----+
                            | PCE |
                            +-----+
          Initiates:         |    \      Initiates:
          Tunnel 1 (F)       |     \     Tunnel 2 (F)
          (LSP1 (F, 0))      |      \    (LSP2 (F, 0))
          Association #3     v       v   Association #3
                          +-----+    +-----+
                          |  A  |    |  D  |
                          +-----+    +-----+


                            +-----+
                            | PCE |
                            +-----+
          Reports:           ^    ^      Reports:
          Tunnel 1 (F)       |     \     Tunnel 2 (F)
          (LSP1 (F, P4))     |      \    (LSP2 (F, P5))
          Association #3     |       \   Association #3
                          +-----+    +-----+
                          |  A  |    |  D  |
                          +-----+    +-----+

  Legend: F = Forward LSP, (0,P4,P5) = PLSP-IDs
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Using partial topology from <xref target="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp"/>, as shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-pce-initiated-double-sided-bidirectional-lsp"/>, the forward Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1
        are initiated on the endpoint node A, and the reverse Tunnel 2 and
        reverse LSP2 are initiated on the endpoint node D by the PCE.
        The PLSP-IDs used are P4 on the endpoint node A
        and P5 on the endpoint node D.
        The endpoint node A (PCC) reports the forward LSP1, and endpoint node D reports the forward LSP2 to the PCE.
          </t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="sect-3.2.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>PCC-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
          <figure anchor="ure-example-of-pcc-initiated-double-sided-bidirectional-lsp">
            <name>Example of PCC-Initiated Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP</name>
            <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
                            +-----+
                            | PCE |
                            +-----+
        Reports/Delegates:   ^    ^      Reports/Delegates:
        Tunnel 1 (F)         |     \     Tunnel 2 (F)
        (LSP1 (F, P4))       |      \    (LSP2 (F, P5))
        Association #4       |       \   Association #4
                          +-----+    +-----+
                          |  A  |    |  D  |
                          +-----+    +-----+

  Legend: F = Forward LSP, (P4,P5) = PLSP-IDs
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Using partial topology from <xref target="ure-example-of-associated-bidirectional-lsp"/>, as shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-pcc-initiated-double-sided-bidirectional-lsp"/>, the forward Tunnel 1 and forward LSP1
        are initiated on the endpoint node A, and the reverse Tunnel 2 and
        reverse LSP2 are initiated on the endpoint node D (the PCCs).
        The PLSP-IDs used are P4 on the endpoint node A and P5 on the endpoint node D.
        Both endpoint (PCC) nodes may delegate the forward LSP1 and LSP2 to the PCE.
        The endpoint node A (PCC) reports the forward LSP1, and endpoint node D reports the forward LSP2 to the PCE.
          </t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-3.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP</name>
        <t>In both single-sided and double-sided initiation cases, forward and
        reverse LSPs can be co-routed as shown in <xref target="ure-example-of-co-routed-associated-bidirectional-lsp"/>, where both forward
        and reverse LSPs of a bidirectional LSP follow the same congruent path
        in the forward and reverse directions, respectively.</t>
        <figure anchor="ure-example-of-co-routed-associated-bidirectional-lsp">
          <name>Example of Co-routed Associated Bidirectional LSP</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
            LSP3 -->          LSP3 -->          LSP3 -->
   +-----+           +-----+           +-----+           +-----+
   |  A  +-----------+  B  +-----------+  C  +-----------+  D  |
   +-----+           +-----+           +-----+           +-----+
           <-- LSP4          <-- LSP4          <-- LSP4
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>The procedure specified in <xref target="RFC8537"/> for fast reroute bypass tunnel 
    assignment is also applicable to the co-routed associated bidirectional LSPs.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-3.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Summary of PCEP Extensions</name>
        <t>
      The PCEP extensions defined in this document cover the following modes of 
      operation under the stateful PCE model:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>A PCC initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
          bidirectional LSP and retains control of the
          LSPs. Similarly, both PCCs initiate the forward LSPs of a 
          double-sided bidirectional LSP and retain control of the
          LSPs. The PCC computes the path itself or makes a request for path
          computation to a PCE. After the path setup, it reports the
          information and state of the path to the PCE. This includes the
          association group identifying the bidirectional LSP. This is the
          passive stateful mode defined in <xref target="RFC8051" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>A PCC initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
          bidirectional LSP and delegates control of the
          LSPs to a stateful PCE. Similarly, both PCCs initiate the forward LSPs of a 
          double-sided bidirectional LSP and delegate control of the
          LSPs to a stateful PCE. During delegation, the association group
          identifying the bidirectional LSP is included. The PCE computes the
          path of the LSP and updates the PCC with the information about the
          path as long as it controls the LSP. This is the active stateful
          mode defined in <xref target="RFC8051" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>A PCE initiates the forward and reverse LSP of a single-sided
          bidirectional LSP on a PCC and retains control
          of the LSP. Similarly, a PCE initiates the forward LSPs of a 
          double-sided bidirectional LSP on both PCCs and retains control
          of the LSPs. The PCE is responsible for computing the path of the LSP
          and updating the PCC with the information about the path as well as
          the association group identifying the bidirectional LSP. This is the
          PCE-initiated mode defined in <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>A PCC requests co-routed or non-co-routed paths for forward and
          reverse LSPs of a bidirectional LSP, including when using a stateless PCE <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-3.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Operational Considerations</name>
        <t>
      The double-sided case has an advantage when compared to the single-sided 
      case, summarized as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>In the double-sided case, two existing unidirectional LSPs in reverse 
      directions in the network can be associated to form a bidirectional LSP without 
      significantly increasing the operational complexity.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The single-sided case has some advantages when compared to the double-sided case, summarized as follows:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Some Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) use cases 
       may require an endpoint node to know both forward and 
       reverse paths for monitoring the bidirectional LSP. For such use cases, the
       single-sided case may be preferred.</li>
          <li>For co-routed associated bidirectional LSPs in PCC-initiated mode, 
       the single-sided case allows the originating PCC to dynamically compute 
       co-routed forward and reverse paths. This may not be possible with the double-sided 
       case where the forward and reverse paths are computed 
       separately as triggered by two different PCCs.</li>
          <li>The associated bidirectional LSPs in the single-sided case can be deployed 
       in a network where PCEP is only enabled on the originating endpoint nodes as
       remote endpoint nodes create the reverse tunnels using RSVP-TE Path messages.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-4" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Protocol Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="sect-4.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>ASSOCIATION Object</name>
        <t>As per <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>, LSPs are associated by adding them
        to a common association group. This document defines two new Association Types, called
        "Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association" (4) and "Double-Sided
        Bidirectional LSP Association" (5), using the generic ASSOCIATION
        object (Object-Class value 40).
        A member of the Bidirectional LSP Association
        can take the role of a forward or reverse LSP and follows the following rules:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>An LSP (forward or reverse) <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be part of more than one
         Bidirectional LSP Association.</li>
          <li>The LSPs in a Bidirectional LSP Association <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> have matching endpoint 
         nodes in the reverse directions.</li>
          <li>The same tunnel (as defined in <xref target="RFC3209"
          sectionFormat="of" section="2.1"/>) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> contain the
          forward and reverse LSPs of the Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP
          Association on the originating node, albeit both LSPs have reversed
          endpoint nodes.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>The Bidirectional LSP Association Types are considered to be both dynamic and 
        operator configured in nature.  As per <xref target="RFC8697"/>, the association group could
        be manually created by the operator on the PCEP peers, and the LSPs
        belonging to this association are conveyed via PCEP messages to the
        PCEP peer; alternately, the association group could be created
        dynamically by the PCEP speaker, and both the association group
        information and the LSPs belonging to the association group are
        conveyed to the PCEP peer.  The operator-configured Association Range
        <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set for this Association Type to mark a range of Association
        Identifiers that are used for operator-configured associations to
        avoid any Association Identifier clash within the scope of the
        Association Source (refer to <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>).</t>
        <t>Specifically, for the PCE-initiated bidirectional LSPs, these associations 
        are dynamically created by the PCE on the PCE peers. Similarly, 
        for both the PCE-initiated and the PCC-initiated single-sided cases, 
        these associations are also dynamically created on the 
        remote endpoint node using the information 
        received from the RSVP message from the originating node.</t>
        <t>The Association ID, Association Source, optional Global Association
        Source TLV, and optional Extended Association ID TLV in the Bidirectional LSP
        ASSOCIATION object are initialized using the procedures defined
        in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC7551" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t><xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/> 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 Bidirectional LSP Association Types <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be
        done before using the Bidirectional LSP Association.  Thus, the PCEP
        speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> include the Bidirectional LSP Association Types in the
        ASSOC-Type-List TLV and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> receive the same from the PCEP peer
        before using the Bidirectional LSP Association in PCEP messages.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-4.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV</name>
        <t>The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is an <bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14> TLV for use with
        Bidirectional LSP Associations (ASSOCIATION object with Association
        Type 4 for Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association or 5 for Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association).</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV follows the PCEP
            TLV format from <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>The Type (16 bits) of the TLV is 54.</li>
          <li>The Length is 4 bytes.</li>
          <li>The value comprises of a single field, the 
            Flags field (32 bits), where each bit represents a flag
            option.</li>
          <li>If the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is missing, it
            means the LSP is the forward LSP, and it is not a co-routed LSP.</li>
          <li>When the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is present, the R 
            flag <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be reset for the forward LSP for both co-routed and non-co-routed LSPs.</li>
          <li>For co-routed LSPs, this TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present and the C flag set.</li>
          <li>For reverse LSPs, this TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be present and the R flag set.</li>
          <li>The Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be present
            more than once. If it appears more than once, only the first
            occurrence is processed, and any others <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored.</li>
        </ul>


        <t>The format of the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV is shown
        in <xref target="ure-bidirectional-lsp-association-group-tlv-format"/>.</t>

        <figure anchor="ure-bidirectional-lsp-association-group-tlv-format">
          <name>Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV Format</name>
          <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![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 = 54             |             Length            |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                       Flags                               |C|R|
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Flags for the Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV are defined as follows.</t>
<dl>
<dt>R (Reverse LSP, 1 bit, bit number 31):</dt><dd>Indicates whether the LSP associated is
        the reverse LSP of the bidirectional LSP. If this flag is set, the LSP
        is a reverse LSP. If this flag is not set, the LSP is a forward LSP.</dd>

<dt>C (Co-routed Path, 1 bit, bit number 30):</dt><dd>Indicates whether the bidirectional LSP
        is co-routed. This flag <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set for both the forward and reverse
        LSPs of a co-routed bidirectional LSP.</dd>
</dl>
        <t>The C flag is used by the PCE (both stateful and stateless) to
        compute bidirectional paths of the forward and reverse LSPs of a
        co-routed bidirectional LSP.</t>
        <t>The unassigned flags (bit numbers 0-29) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be set to 0 when sent and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored
        when received.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-5" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>PCEP Procedure</name>
      <t>The PCEP procedure defined in this document is applicable to the following three scenarios:</t>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Neither unidirectional LSP exists, and both must be established.</li>
        <li>Both unidirectional LSPs exist, but the association must be established.</li>
        <li>One LSP exists, but the reverse associated LSP must be established.</li>
      </ul>
      <section anchor="sect-5.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>PCE-Initiated LSPs</name>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>, Bidirectional LSP
        Associations can be created and updated by a stateful PCE.</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>For a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated by the PCE, 
        the PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCInitiate message to the originating endpoint node with both forward and reverse LSPs. For a Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association 
        initiated by the PCE, it <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCInitiate message to both 
        endpoint nodes with forward LSPs. </li>
          <li>Both PCCs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> report the forward and reverse LSPs in the 
            Bidirectional LSP Association to the PCE. A PCC reports via a PCRpt message.</li>
          <li>Stateful PCEs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> create and update the forward and reverse LSPs
            independently for the Single-Sided Bidirectional
            LSP Association on the originating endpoint node.</li>
          <li>Stateful PCEs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> create and update the forward LSP
            independently for the Double-Sided Bidirectional
            LSP Association on the endpoint nodes.</li>
          <li>Stateful PCEs establish and remove the association
            relationship on a per-LSP basis.</li>
          <li>Stateful PCEs create and update the LSP and the association
            on PCCs via PCInitiate and PCUpd messages, respectively, using
            the procedures described in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>PCC-Initiated LSPs</name>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>, Bidirectional LSP
        Associations can also be created and updated by a PCC.</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">

          <li>For a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated at a PCC, 
        the PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCRpt message to the PCE with both forward and reverse LSPs. 
        For a Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association initiated at the PCCs, 
        both PCCs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send a PCRpt message to the PCE with forward LSPs.</li>
          <li>PCCs on the originating endpoint node <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> create and update the forward and reverse LSPs
            independently for the Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association.</li>
          <li>PCCs on the endpoint nodes <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> create and update the forward LSP
            independently for the Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association.</li>
          <li>PCCs establish and remove the association group on a
            per-LSP basis. PCCs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> report the change in the association group of an LSP
            to PCE(s) via a PCRpt message.</li>
          <li>PCCs report the forward and reverse LSPs in the Bidirectional LSP Association independently to
            PCE(s) via a PCRpt message.</li>
          <li>PCCs for the single-sided case <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> delegate the forward and reverse LSPs independently to
            a stateful PCE, where the PCE would control the LSPs. In this case,
            the originating (PCC) endpoint node <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> delegate both forward and reverse
            LSPs of a tunnel together to a stateful PCE in order to avoid any race condition.</li>
          <li>PCCs for the double-sided case <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> delegate the forward LSPs to
            a stateful PCE, where the PCE would control the LSPs.</li>
          <li>A stateful PCE updates the LSPs in the Bidirectional LSP
            Association via a PCUpd message, using the procedures
            described in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>.</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Stateless PCE</name>
        <t>For a stateless PCE, it might be useful to associate a path computation request to an association group, thus enabling it to
        associate a common set of configuration parameters or behaviors with
        the request <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>. A PCC can request co-routed or non-co-routed forward and
        reverse paths from a stateless PCE for a Bidirectional LSP Association.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Bidirectional (B) Flag</name>
        <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, the Bidirectional (B) flag
        in the Request Parameters (RP) object is set when the PCC specifies
        that the path computation request is for a bidirectional TE LSP with the 
        same TE requirements in each direction. For an
        associated bidirectional LSP, the B flag is also set when the PCC makes
        the path computation request for the same TE requirements for the
        forward and reverse LSPs.</t>
        <t>Note that the B flag defined in a Stateful PCE Request Parameter (SRP)
        object <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls" format="default"/> to 
        indicate "bidirectional co-routed LSP" is used for GMPLS-signaled bidirectional LSPs 
        and is not applicable to the associated bidirectional LSPs.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>PLSP-ID Usage</name>
        <t>As defined in <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, a PCEP-specific LSP
        Identifier (PLSP-ID) is created by a PCC to uniquely identify an LSP,
        and it remains the same for the lifetime of a PCEP session.</t>
        <t>In the case of a Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association, the reverse
        LSP of a bidirectional LSP created on the originating endpoint node is
        identified by the PCE using two different PLSP-IDs, based on the PCEP
        session on the ingress or egress node PCCs for the LSP. In other words,
        the LSP will have a PLSP-ID P2 allocated at the
        ingress node PCC, while it will have a PLSP-ID P3 allocated at the egress node PCC 
        (as shown in Figures <xref target="ure-example-of-pce-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp" format="counter" /> and <xref target="ure-example-of-pcc-initiated-single-sided-bidirectional-lsp" format="counter"/>).  There is no change in the PLSP-ID
        allocation procedure for the forward LSP of a single-sided
	bidirectional LSP created on the originating endpoint node.</t>
        <t>In the case of a Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
        Association, there is no change in the PLSP-ID allocation
        procedure for the forward LSPs on either PCC.</t>
        <t>For an associated bidirectional LSP, the LSP-IDENTIFIERS TLV <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/> <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be included in all forward and reverse
        LSPs.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.6" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>State Synchronization</name>
        <t>During state synchronization, a PCC <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> report all the existing
        Bidirectional LSP Associations to the stateful PCE, as per <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>.  After the state synchronization, the PCE <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> 
        remove all previous
        Bidirectional LSP Associations absent in the report.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-5.7" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Error Handling</name>
        <t>If a PCE speaker receives an LSP with a 
        Bidirectional LSP Association Type that it does not support, 
        the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 1 (Association Type
        is not supported).</t>
        <t>An LSP (forward or reverse) cannot be part of more than one
        Bidirectional LSP Association. If a PCE speaker receives an LSP
        not complying to this rule, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 14 (Association group mismatch).</t>

        <t>The LSPs (forward or reverse) in a Single-Sided Bidirectional
        Association <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> belong to the same TE tunnel (as defined in
        <xref target="RFC3209" format="default"/>). If a PCE speaker attempts to add an LSP in a
        Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association for a different
        tunnel, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type = 26 (Association
        Error) and Error-value = 15 (Tunnel mismatch in the association group).</t>
        <t>The PCEP Path Setup Type (PST) for RSVP-TE is set to
        "Path is set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol" (Value 0) 
        <xref target="RFC8408" format="default"/>. If a PCEP speaker receives a
        different PST value for the Bidirectional LSP Associations 
        defined in this document, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> return a PCErr message with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 16 (Path Setup Type not supported).</t>
        <t>A Bidirectional LSP Association cannot have both unidirectional 
        LSPs identified as reverse LSPs or both LSPs
        identified as forward LSPs. If a PCE speaker receives an LSP
        not complying to this rule, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 17 (Bidirectional LSP direction mismatch).</t>
        <t>A Bidirectional LSP Association cannot have one unidirectional 
        LSP identified as co-routed and the other identified as non-co-routed. If a PCE speaker receives an LSP
        not complying to this rule, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 18 (Bidirectional LSP co-routed mismatch).</t>
        <t>The unidirectional LSPs forming the Bidirectional
        LSP Association <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> have matching endpoint nodes in the reverse directions. 
        If a PCE speaker receives an LSP
        not complying to this rule, the PCE speaker <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> send PCErr with Error-Type =
        26 (Association Error) and Error-value = 19 (Endpoint mismatch in the association group).</t>
        <t>The processing rules as specified in <xref target="RFC8697" section="6.4" sectionFormat="of"/> continue to apply to the Association Types defined
        in this document.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-7" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>,
      <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/> apply to the
      extensions defined in this document as well.</t>
      <t>Two new Association Types for the ASSOCIATION object, Single-Sided
      Bidirectional LSP Association and Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP
      Association, are introduced in this document. Additional security
      considerations related to LSP associations due to a malicious PCEP
      speaker are described in <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/> and apply to these
      Association Types. Hence, securing the PCEP session using Transport
      Layer Security (TLS) <xref target="RFC8253" format="default"/> is <bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-8" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="sect-8.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>The mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any control or
        policy requirements in addition to those already listed in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-8.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC7420" format="default"/> describes the PCEP MIB; there are no new
        MIB objects defined for LSP associations.</t>
        <t>The PCEP YANG module <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang" format="default"/>
        defines a data model for LSP associations.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-8.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
        <t>The 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"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>,
        and <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-8.4" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
        <t>The 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"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and
        <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-8.5" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements on Other Protocols</name>
        <t>The mechanisms defined in this document do not add any new
        requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-8.6" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Impact on Network Operations</name>
        <t>The 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"/>, <xref target="RFC8231" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="sect-9" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>


      <section anchor="sect-9.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Association Types</name>

        <t>This document defines two new Association Types
    <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/>.  IANA has assigned the following new values in the
    "ASSOCIATION Type Field" subregistry <xref target="RFC8697" format="default"/> within the "Path
    Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:</t>



<table anchor="assoc-types">
  <name>Additions to ASSOCIATION Type Field Subregistry</name> 
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Type</th> 
      <th>Name</th> 
      <th>Reference</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody> 
    <tr>
      <td>4</td>
      <td>Single-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5</td>
      <td>Double-Sided Bidirectional LSP Association</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-9.2" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV</name>
        <t>This document defines a new TLV for carrying additional information
        about LSPs within a Bidirectional LSP Association. IANA has
        assigned the following value in the "PCEP
        TLV Type Indicators" subregistry within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:</t>

<table anchor="new-tlv"> 
  <name>Addition to PCEP TLV Type Indicators Subregistry
</name>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Value</th>
      <th>Meaning</th>
      <th>Reference</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>        
    <tr>
      <td>54</td>
      <td>Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>


        <section anchor="sect-9.2.1" numbered="true" toc="default">
          <name>Flag Field in Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV</name>
          <t>IANA has created a new subregistry, named
          "Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field",
          within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
          registry to manage the Flag field in the Bidirectional LSP
          Association Group TLV. New values are assigned by Standards
          Action <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Each bit should be tracked with the
          following qualities:</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>Bit number (count from 0 as the most significant bit)</li>
            <li>Description</li>
            <li>Reference</li>
          </ul>
          <t>The initial contents of this registry are as follows: 
          </t>

<table anchor="flag-field">
  <name>New Bidirectional LSP Association Group TLV Flag Field Subregistry</name>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Bit</th>
      <th>Description</th>
      <th>Reference</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>          

    <tr>
      <td>0-29</td>
      <td>Unassigned</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>30</td>
      <td>C - Co-routed Path</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>31</td>
      <td>R - Reverse LSP</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="sect-9.3" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>PCEP Errors</name>
        <t>This document defines new Error-values for Error-Type 26
        (Association Error). IANA has allocated the following new Error-values
        within the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" subregistry of
        the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry:</t>


<table anchor="error-value">
  <name>Additions to PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values Subregistry</name>
  <thead>
    <tr>
      <th>Error-Type</th>
      <th>Meaning</th>
      <th>Error-value</th>
      <th>Reference</th>
    </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>          
    <tr>
      <td rowspan="6">26</td>
      <td rowspan="6">Association Error</td>
      <td>14: Association group mismatch</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>15: Tunnel mismatch in the association group</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>16: Path Setup Type not supported</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>17: Bidirectional LSP direction mismatch</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>18: Bidirectional LSP co-routed mismatch</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>19: Endpoint mismatch in the association group</td>
      <td>RFC 9059</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>


      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>

<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang" to="PCE-PCEP-YANG"/>
<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls" to="STATEFUL-PCE-GMPLS"/>
<displayreference target="I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path" to="BIDIR-PATH"/>

    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3209.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7551.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8231.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8537.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8697.xml"/>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5654.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7420.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8051.xml"/>
        <xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8408.xml"/>

<!-- [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang] IESG state I-D Exists -->

<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang'>
<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 />
</author>

<author initials='J' surname='Hardwick' fullname='Jonathan Hardwick'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='V' surname='Beeram' fullname='Vishnu Beeram'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='J' surname='Tantsura' fullname='Jeff Tantsura'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='February' day='22' year='2021' />

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-16.txt' />
</reference>


<!-- [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls] IESG state I-D Exists -->

<reference anchor='I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls'>
<front>
<title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks</title>

<author initials='Y' surname='Lee' fullname='Young Lee' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='H' surname='Zheng' fullname='Haomian Zheng' role="editor">
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='O' surname='de Dios' fullname='Oscar de Dios'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='V' surname='Lopez' fullname='Victor Lopez'>
    <organization />
</author>

<author initials='Z' surname='Ali' fullname='Zafar Ali'>
    <organization />
</author>

<date month='December' day='28' year='2020' />

</front>

<seriesInfo name='Internet-Draft' value='draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-14' />
<format type='TXT'
        target='http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-14.txt' />
</reference>


<!-- [I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path] IESG state I-D Exists -->

        <xi:include href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-pce-sr-bidir-path.xml"/>
      </references>
    </references>
    <section anchor="acknowledgments" numbered="false" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The authors would like to thank <contact fullname="Dhruv Dhody"/> for various discussions
      on association groups and inputs to this document. The authors would
      also like to thank  <contact fullname="Mike Taillon"/>, <contact fullname="Harish Sitaraman"/>, <contact fullname="Al Morton"/>, and <contact fullname="Marina Fizgeer"/> for
      reviewing this document and providing valuable comments.
      The authors would like to thank the following IESG members for their 
      review comments and suggestions: <contact fullname="Barry Leiba"/>, <contact fullname="Éric Vyncke"/>, <contact fullname="Benjamin Kaduk"/>, 
      <contact fullname="Murray Kucherawy"/>, <contact fullname="Martin Duke"/>, and <contact fullname="Alvaro Retana"/>.
      </t>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>
