<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.29 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-15" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="8231" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.31.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extensions for Multipath">Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Signaling Multipath Information</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-multipath-15"/>
    <author initials="M." surname="Koldychev" fullname="Mike Koldychev">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>mkoldych@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Sivabalan" fullname="Siva Sivabalan">
      <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssivabal@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="T." surname="Saad" fullname="Tarek Saad">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <email>tsaad@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="V." surname="Beeram" fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram">
      <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>vbeeram@juniper.net</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="H." surname="Bidgoli" fullname="Hooman Bidgoli">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="B." surname="Yadav" fullname="Bhupendra Yadav">
      <organization>Ciena</organization>
      <address>
        <email>byadav@ciena.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>pengshuping@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="G." surname="Mishra" fullname="Gyan Mishra">
      <organization>Verizon Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="S." surname="Sidor" fullname="Samuel Sidor" role="editor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2025" month="October" day="16"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 68?>

<t>Certain traffic engineering path computation problems require solutions that
consist of multiple traffic paths that together form a solution.
Returning a single traffic path does not provide a valid solution.
This document defines mechanisms to encode multiple paths for a single set of
objectives and constraints.
This allows encoding of multiple Segment Lists per
Candidate Path within a Segment Routing Policy.
The new Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) mechanisms are designed to be generic,
where possible, to allow for future re-use outside of SR Policy.
The new PCEP mechanisms are applicable to both stateless and stateful PCEP. Additionally,
this document updates RFC 8231 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 82?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
<xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of SR
Policy and approaches to steering traffic into an SR Policy.  In
particular, it describes the SR Candidate Path as a collection of one
or more Segment Lists.  The current PCEP standards only allow for
signaling of one Segment List per Candidate Path.  The PCEP extension to
support Segment Routing Policy Candidate Paths
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> specifically avoids
defining how to signal multiple Segment Lists.</t>
      <t>This document defines the required extensions that allow the signaling
of multipath information via PCEP. Although these extensions are
motivated by the SR Policy use case, they are also applicable
to other data plane types.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED",
"MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, 
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="terminology">
        <name>Terminology</name>
        <t>The following terms are used in this document:</t>
        <t>ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Equal Cost Multi Path, equally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where each path/link gets the same share of traffic as others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>W-ECMP:</t>
        <ul empty="true">
          <li>
            <t>Weighted ECMP, unequally distributing traffic among multiple paths/links, where some paths/links get more traffic than others.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="motivation">
      <name>Motivation</name>
      <t>This extension is motivated by the use-cases described below.</t>
      <section anchor="signaling-multiple-segment-lists-of-an-sr-candidate-path">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Segment Lists of an SR Candidate Path</name>
        <t>The Candidate Path of an SR Policy is the unit of signaling in PCEP, see
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>.  Each Candidate Path can
contain multiple Segment Lists and each Segment List is encoded by
one ERO.  However, each PCEP LSP can contain only a
single ERO, which prevents us from encoding multiple Segment Lists 
within the same SR Candidate Path.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="splitting-of-requested-bandwidth">
        <name>Splitting of Requested Bandwidth</name>
        <t>A PCC may request a path with 80 Gbps of bandwidth, but all links in the
network have only 60 Gbps capacity.  The PCE can return two paths, that can
together carry 80 Gbps. The PCC can then equally or unequally split the incoming
80 Gbps of traffic among the two paths. <xref target="WEIGHT-TLV"/> introduces a
new TLV that carries the path weight that facilitates control of load-balancing
of traffic among the multiple paths.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="reverse-path-information">
        <name>Reverse Path Information</name>
        <t>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated 
Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) <xref target="RFC9059"/> defines a mechanism in PCEP
to associate two opposite direction SR Policy Candidate Paths. 
However, within each Candidate Path there can be multiple Segment Lists,
and <xref target="RFC9059"/> does not define a mechanism to specify 
mapping between Segment Lists of the forward and reverse Candidate Paths.
Certain applications such as Circuit Style SR Policy <xref target="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy"/>,
require the knowledge of reverse path(s) per Segment List, not just per Candidate Path.
For example, when the headend knows the reverse Segment List for each forward Segment List, 
then PM/BFD can run a separate session on every Segment List, 
by imposing a double stack (forward stack followed by reverse stack) onto the packet.
If the reverse Segment List is co-routed with the forward Segment List, then 
the PM/BFD session would traverse the same links in the forward and reverse directions,
thus allowing detection of link/node failures in both directions.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="protocol-extensions">
      <name>Protocol Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="path-attributes-object">
        <name>Path Attributes Object</name>
        <t>We define the PATH-ATTRIB object that is used to carry per-path
information and to act as a separator between several ERO/RRO objects
in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt; RBNF element.
The PATH-ATTRIB object always precedes the ERO/RRO that it applies to.  If
multiple ERO/RRO objects are present, then each ERO/RRO object MUST be
preceded by an PATH-ATTRIB object that describes it.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Class value is 45.</t>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB Object-Type value is 1.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-path-attrib">
          <name>PATH-ATTRIB object format</name>
          <artwork><![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
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Flags                         |R|  O  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                        Path ID                                |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  ~                     Optional TLVs                             ~
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Flags (32 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>O (Operational - 3 bits): operational state of the path, same 
values as the identically named field in the LSP object <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>R (Reverse - 1 bit): Indicates this path is reverse, i.e., it
originates on the LSP destination and terminates on the
LSP source (usually the PCC headend itself).
Paths with this flag set serve only informational
purpose to the PCC.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Path ID (32 bits): 4-octet identifier that identifies a path (encoded
in the ERO/RRO) within the set of multiple paths under the PCEP LSP.
See <xref target="PATH-ID"/> for details.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="METRIC">
        <name>Metric</name>
        <t>The PCEP METRIC object can continue to be used at the LSP level.
The metric value encoded into the LSP level METRIC object SHOULD be
the maximum value of all the per PATH metrics. Per-path metrics are
outside the scope of this document and would require further extensions.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="WEIGHT-TLV">
        <name>Multipath Weight TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-weight">
          <name>MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                             Weight                            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 61 for "MULTIPATH-WEIGHT" TLV.</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4.</t>
        <t>Weight (32 bits): weight of this path within the multipath, if W-ECMP
is desired. The fraction of flows a specific ERO/RRO carries is derived
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of the weights of all other paths.</t>
        <t>When the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is absent from the PATH-ATTRIB object,
or the PATH-ATTRIB object is absent from the
&lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;, then the Weight of the corresponding
path is taken to be "1".</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="BACKUP-TLV">
        <name>Multipath Backup TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
        <t>This TLV is used to specify protecting standby path(s),
for each ECMP path within a PCEP LSP.
This is similar to path protection, but works at the ECMP path level
instead of at the PCEP LSP level.</t>
        <t>This functionality is not part of the SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
but is something optional that may be implemented for certain 
specialized use cases.
One such use case is the P2MP SR Policy <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy"/>.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-backup">
          <name>MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |       Backup Path Count       |             Flags           |B|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 1                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID 2                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                              ...                              |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                         Backup Path ID n                      |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 62 for "MULTIPATH-BACKUP" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 4 + (N * 4) (where N is the Backup Path Count)</t>
        <t>Backup Path Count (16 bits): Number of backup path(s).</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>B: If set, indicates a pure backup path. This is a path that only
carries rerouted traffic after the protected path fails. If this flag
is not set, or if the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is absent,
then the path is assumed to be primary that
carries normal traffic.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Backup Path ID(s): a series of 4-octet identifier(s) that identify the
backup path(s) in the set that protect this primary path.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR-PATH-TLV">
        <name>Multipath Opposite Direction Path TLV</name>
        <t>New MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.
Multiple instances of the TLV are allowed in the same PATH-ATTRIB object.
This TLV encodes a many-to-many mapping between forward and reverse
paths.</t>
        <t>Many-to-many mapping means that a single forward path MAY map
to multiple reverse paths and conversely that a single reverse
path MAY map to multiple forward paths.
Many-to-many mapping can happen for an SR Policy,
when a Segment List contains Node Segment(s)
which traverse parallel links at the midpoint.
The reverse of this Segment List may not be able to be expressed as a single
Reverse Segment List, but requires multiple Reverse Segment Lists
to cover all the parallel links at the midpoint.</t>
        <figure anchor="fig-multipath-oppdir">
          <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV format</name>
          <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |           Reserved            |             Flags         |L|N|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                 Opposite Direction Path ID                    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>Type (16 bits): 63 for "MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH" TLV</t>
        <t>Length (16 bits): 16.</t>
        <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
        <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>N (Node co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
node co-routed with
its opposite direction path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are node co-routed if they
traverse the same nodes,
but MAY traverse different links.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>L (Link co-routed): If set, indicates this path is
link co-routed with
its opposite directions path, specified in this TLV.
Two opposite direction paths are link co-routed if they
traverse the same links (but in opposite directions).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>Opposite Direction Path ID (32 bits): Identifies a path that
goes in the opposite direction to this path.
If no such path exists, then this field MUST be set to 0x0,
a value reserved to indicate the absence of a Path ID.</t>
        <t>Multiple instances of this TLV
present in the same PATH-ATTRIB object indicate that there are multiple
opposite-direction paths corresponding to the given path. This allows for
many-to-many relationship among the paths of two opposite direction LSPs.</t>
        <t>Whenever path A references another path B as being the
opposite-direction path, then path B MUST also reference path A as its
own opposite-direction path.
Furthermore, their values of the R-flag (Reverse) in the PATH-ATTRIB
object MUST have opposite values.</t>
        <t>See <xref target="OPPDIREX"/> for an example of usage.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCP">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>SR Policy Architecture <xref target="RFC9256"/> defines the concept of a
Composite Candidate Path. 
A regular SR Policy Candidate Path outputs traffic to a set of Segment Lists, 
while an SR Policy Composite Candidate Path outputs traffic recursively to 
a set of SR Policies on the same headend.
In PCEP, the Composite Candidate Path still consists of PATH-ATTRIB objects,
but ERO is replaced by Color of the recursively used SR Policy.</t>
        <t>To signal the Composite Candidate Path, we make use of the COLOR TLV, defined in
<xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color"/>. For a Composite Candidate Path, the COLOR TLV
is included in the PATH-ATTRIB Object, thus allowing each Composite Candidate Path
to do ECMP/W-ECMP among SR Policies identified by its constituent Colors.
Only one COLOR TLV MUST be included into the PATH-ATTRIB object. If multiple
COLOR TLVs are contained in the PATH-ATTRIB object, only the first one MUST be
processed and the others MUST be ignored.</t>
        <t>An ERO object MUST be included as per the existing RBNF, 
this ERO MUST contain no sub-objects.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO, the contents SHOULD be ignored.</t>
        <t>See <xref target="CCPEX"/> for an example of the encoding.</t>
        <section anchor="PFP">
          <name>Per-Flow Candidate Path</name>
          <t>Per-Flow Candidate Path builds on top of the concept of the Composite Candidate Path.
Each Path in a Per-Flow Candidate Path is assigned a 3-bit forward class value, 
which allows QoS classified traffic to be steered depending on the forward class.</t>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is optional in the PATH-ATTRIB object.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-forward-class">
            <name>MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV format</name>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                          Reserved                       | FC  |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): TBD1 for "MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4.</t>
          <t>Reserved: This field MUST be set to zero on transmission and MUST be
ignored on receipt.</t>
          <t>FC (3 bits): Forward class value that is given by the QoS classifier to
traffic entering the given Candidate Path. Different classes of traffic
that enter the given Candidate Path can be differentially steered into
different Colors.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="OP">
      <name>Operation</name>
      <section anchor="capability-negotiation">
        <name>Capability Negotiation</name>
        <section anchor="multipath-capability-tlv">
          <name>Multipath Capability TLV</name>
          <t>New MULTIPATH-CAP TLV is defined. 
This TLV MAY be present in the OPEN object during PCEP session establishment.</t>
          <figure anchor="fig-multipath-cap">
            <name>MULTIPATH-CAP TLV format</name>
            <artwork><![CDATA[
   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |             Type              |             Length            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Number of Multipaths      |            Flags    |C|F|O|B|W|
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
]]></artwork>
          </figure>
          <t>Type (16 bits): 60 for "MULTIPATH-CAP" TLV.</t>
          <t>Length (16 bits): 4.</t>
          <t>Number of Multipaths (16 bits): When sent from a PCC, it indicates how many multipaths the PCC
can install in forwarding. 
From a PCE, it indicates how many multipaths the PCE can compute.
The value 255 indicates an unlimited number.
The value 0 is reserved.</t>
          <t>Flags (16 bits):</t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>
              <t>W-flag: whether MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>B-flag: whether MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>O-flag: whether MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV is supported and requested. 
If this flag is set, the PCE SHOULD tell the PCC the reverse path information, if it is able to.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>F-flag: whether MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>C-flag: whether Composite Candidate Path (<xref target="CCP"/>) is supported.</t>
            </li>
            <li>
              <t>Unassigned bits MUST be set to '0' on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt.</t>
            </li>
          </ul>
          <t>Note that F-flag and C-flag can be set independently,
i.e., F-flag can be set, but C-flag not set, etc.</t>
          <t>When PCE computes the LSP path, it MUST NOT return more forward 
multipaths than the corresponding value of "Number of Multipaths"
from the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV.  If this TLV is absent (from both OPEN
and LSP objects), then the "Number of Multipaths" is assumed to be 1.</t>
          <t>From the PCC, the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV MAY also be present in the LSP object for each individual LSP, to specify per-LSP values.
The PCC MUST NOT include this TLV in the LSP object if the TLV was not
present in the OPEN objects of both PCEP peers.
TLV values in the LSP object override the session default values 
in the OPEN object. Furthermore, the PATH-ATTRIB object and its associated TLVs MUST NOT be included
in PCEP messages if the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV was not present in the OPEN objects
exchanged by both PCEP peers during session establishment.</t>
          <t>For example, the PCC includes this TLV in the OPEN object at session establishment,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 4 and "O-flag" to 0.
The PCC also includes this TLV in the LSP object for a particular LSP,
setting "Number of Multipaths" to 16 and "O-flag" to 1.
This indicates that the PCC only wants to receive the reverse path information for that
particular LSP and that this LSP can have up to 16 multipaths,
while other LSPs can only have up to 4 multipaths.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="PATH-ID">
        <name>Path ID</name>
        <t>The Path ID uniquely identifies a Path within the context of an LSP.
Note that when the LSP is an SR Policy Candidate Path, the 
Paths within that LSP are the Segment Lists.</t>
        <t>Value 0x0 indicates an unallocated Path ID.
The value of 0x0 MAY be used when this Path is not referenced 
and the allocation of a Path ID is not necessary.</t>
        <t>Path IDs are allocated by the PCEP peer that owns the LSP.
If the LSP is delegated to the PCE, then the PCE allocates the Path IDs
and sends them in the PCReply/PCUpd/PCInit messages.
If the LSP is locally computed on the PCC, then the PCC allocates the
Path IDs and sends them in the PCReq/PCRpt messages.</t>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker detects that there are two Paths with the same Path ID,
then the PCEP speaker SHOULD send PCError message with
Error-Type = 1 ("Reception of an invalid object") and
Error-Value = 38 ("Conflicting Path ID").</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="signaling-multiple-paths-for-loadbalancing">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Loadbalancing</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to signal multiple path(s) and indicate
(un)equal loadbalancing amongst the set of multipaths. In this case, the
PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE MAY assign a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populate
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP (when non-zero).</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV MAY be carried inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. A
weight is populated to reflect the relative loadshare that is to be
carried by the path. If the MULTIPATH-WEIGHT is not carried inside a
PATH-ATTRIB object, the default weight 1 MUST be assumed when computing
the loadshare.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The fraction of flows carried by a specific primary path is derived
from the ratio of its weight to the sum of all other multipath weights.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
      </section>
      <section anchor="signaling-multiple-paths-for-protection">
        <name>Signaling Multiple Paths for Protection</name>
        <t>The PATH-ATTRIB object can be used to describe a set of backup path(s) protecting
a primary path within a PCEP LSP. In this case, the PATH-ATTRIB is populated for each ERO as
follows:</t>
        <ol spacing="normal" type="1"><li>
            <t>The PCE assigns a unique Path ID to each ERO path and populates
it inside the PATH-ATTRIB object. The Path ID is unique within the
context of a PLSP.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MAY be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is protected. The backup path ID(s) are populated in the
MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV to reflect the set of backup paths protecting the
primary path. The Length field and Backup Path Count in the MULTIPATH-BACKUP
are updated according to the number of backup path ID(s) included.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>The MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV MAY be added inside the PATH-ATTRIB object for each
ERO that is unprotected. In this case, MULTIPATH-BACKUP does not carry
any backup path IDs in the TLV. If the path acts as a pure backup i.e.,
the path only carries rerouted traffic after the protected path(s) fail then
the B flag MUST be set.</t>
          </li>
        </ol>
        <t>Note that primary paths which do not include the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV are assumed
to be protected by all the backup paths. I.e., omitting the TLV is equivalent to
including the TLV with all the backup path IDs filled in.</t>
        <t>Note that a given PCC may not support certain backup combinations,
such as a backup path that is itself protected by another backup path, etc.
If a PCC is not able to implement a requested backup scenario,
the PCC SHOULD send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="RBNF">
      <name>PCEP Message Extensions</name>
      <t>The RBNF of PCReq, PCRep, PCRpt, PCUpd and PCInit messages currently use a combination
of &lt;intended-path&gt; and/or &lt;actual-path&gt;.
As specified in Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, &lt;intended-path&gt; is represented by the
ERO object and &lt;actual-path&gt; is represented by the RRO object:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= <ERO>

   <actual-path> ::= <RRO>
]]></artwork>
      <t>This document updates <xref target="RFC8231"/> to allow multiple ERO/RRO objects to be
present in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt;:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <intended-path> ::= (<ERO>|
                       (<PATH-ATTRIB><ERO>)
                       [<intended-path>])
              

   <actual-path> ::= (<RRO>|
                      (<PATH-ATTRIB><RRO>)
                      [<actual-path>])
]]></artwork>
    </section>
    <section anchor="examples">
      <name>Examples</name>
      <section anchor="sr-policy-candidate-path-with-multiple-segment-lists">
        <name>SR Policy Candidate Path with Multiple Segment Lists</name>
        <t>Consider the following sample SR Policy, taken from<br/>
          <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend, color, endpoint>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SID-List1 <SID11...SID1i>
        Weight W2, SID-List2 <SID21...SID2j>
    Candidate Path CP2 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:2.2.2.2, discriminator = 2>
        Preference 100
        Weight W3, SID-List3 <SID31...SID3i>
        Weight W4, SID-List4 <SID41...SID4j>
]]></artwork>
        <t>As specified in <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/>, CP1 and CP2 
are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has 
a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. 
Let us assign PLSP-ID 100 to CP1 and PLSP-ID 200 to CP2.</t>
        <t>The state-report for CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
    <ERO SID-List1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>>
    <ERO SID-List2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W3>>
    <ERO SID-List3>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W4>>
    <ERO SID-List4>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The above sample state-report elements only 
specify the minimum mandatory objects, 
of course other objects like SRP, LSPA, METRIC, etc., are allowed to be 
inserted.</t>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to "1" and 
with a MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV carrying weight of "W1".</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="two-primary-paths-protected-by-one-backup-path">
        <name>Two Primary Paths Protected by One Backup Path</name>
        <t>Suppose there are 3 paths: A, B, C.
Where A and B are primary and C is to be used only when A or B fail.
Suppose the Path IDs for A, B, C are respectively 1, 2, 3.
This would be encoded in a state-report as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP>
    <ASSOCIATION>
    <END-POINT>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO A>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
    <ERO B>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=3 <BACKUP-TLV B=1, Backup_Paths=[]>>
    <ERO C>
]]></artwork>
        <t>Note that the syntax</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1 <BACKUP-TLV B=0, Backup_Paths=[3]>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>means that this is PATH-ATTRIB object 
with Path ID field set to "1" and 
with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV that has B-flag cleared and contains
a single backup path with Backup Path ID of 3.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="CCPEX">
        <name>Composite Candidate Path</name>
        <t>Consider the following Composite Candidate Path, taken from<br/>
          <xref target="RFC9256"/>.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL100 <headend = H1, color = 100, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1 <protocol-origin = 20, originator =
                        100:1.1.1.1, discriminator = 1>
        Preference 200
        Weight W1, SR policy <color = 1>
        Weight W2, SR policy <color = 2>
]]></artwork>
        <t>This is signaled in PCEP as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
        <ASSOCIATION>
        <END-POINT>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=1
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W1>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=1>>
        <ERO (empty)>
        <PATH-ATTRIB Path_ID=2
            <WEIGHT-TLV Weight=W2>
            <COLOR-TLV Color=2>>
        <ERO (empty)>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIREX">
        <name>Opposite Direction Tunnels</name>
        <t>Consider the two opposite-direction SR Policies between
endpoints H1 and E1.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
SR policy POL1 <headend = H1, color, endpoint = E1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <H1,M1,M2,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M3,M4,E1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <H1,M5,M6,E1>
        SID-List = <H1,M7,M8,E1>

SR policy POL2 <headend = E1, color, endpoint = H1>
    Candidate Path CP1
        Preference 200
        Bidirectional Association = A1
        SID-List = <E1,M2,M1,H1>
        SID-List = <E1,M4,M3,H1>
    Candidate Path CP2
        Preference 100
        Bidirectional Association = A2
        SID-List = <E1,M6,M5,H1>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=4>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=2>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL1, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,N6,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP1 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=100>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A1>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=4>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=2>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
]]></artwork>
        <t>The state-report for POL2, CP2 can be encoded as:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
<state-report> =
    <LSP PLSP_ID=200>
    <BIDIRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION = A2>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=2 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB PathID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePathID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,N6,E1>>
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="implementation-status">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>Note to the RFC Editor - remove this section before publication, as
well as remove the reference to <xref target="RFC7942"/>.</t>
      <t>This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RFC7942"/>.
The description of implementations in this section
is intended to assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing
drafts to RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual
implementation here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore,
no effort has been spent to verify the information presented here that
was supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.</t>
      <t>According to <xref target="RFC7942"/>, "this will allow reviewers and
working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the
benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable
experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols
more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this
information as they see fit".</t>
      <section anchor="cisco-systems">
        <name>Cisco Systems</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Cisco Systems
Implementation: IOS-XR PCC and PCE
Description: Circuit-Style SR Policies
Maturity Level: Supported feature
Coverage: Multiple Segment Lists and reverse paths in SR Policy
Contact: mkoldych@cisco.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ciena-corp">
        <name>Ciena Corp</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Ciena Corp
Implementation: Head-end and controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Full
Contact: byadav@ciena.com
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="huawei-technologies">
        <name>Huawei Technologies</name>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Organization: Huawei Technologies Co.,Ltd.
Implementation: Huawei's Router and Controller
Maturity Level: Proof of concept
Coverage: Partial
Contact: tanren@huawei.com 
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="pcep-object">
        <name>PCEP Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocation in the "PCEP Objects"
   within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry
   group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | Object-Class | Name        | Object-Type       | Reference       |
 | Value        |             | Value             |                 |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
 | 45           | PATH-ATTRIB | 1                 | This document   |
 +--------------+-------------+-------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-tlv">
        <name>PCEP TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 60         | MULTIPATH-CAP                     | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 61         | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 62         | MULTIPATH-BACKUP                  | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 63         | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH             | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new allocations within the
   "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol
   (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TLV Type   | TLV Name                          | Reference       |
 | Value      |                                   |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | TBD1       | MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS           | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-error-object">
        <name>PCEP-Error Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to confirm the following allocations within the
   "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" within the "Path
   Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Error-Type | Error-Value                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 10         | 38 - Conflicting Path ID          | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 20 - Not supported path backup    | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | 21 - Non-empty path               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-capability-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the Multipath Capability TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, called "Flags in MULTIPATH-CAP
TLV" within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers"
registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13         | 0-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV         |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | B-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV              |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | W-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-WEIGHT TLV              |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-path-attribute-object">
        <name>Flags in the Path Attribute Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the PATH-ATTRIBUTE object,
called "Flags in PATH-ATTRIBUTE Object" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 13-15      | O-flag: Operational state         | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-backup-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the Multipath Backup TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
called "Flags in MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV" within the "Path Computation
Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-14       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | B-flag: Pure backup               | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-opposite-direction-path-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the Multipath Opposite Direction Path TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the flag
fields of the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV,
called "Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH TLV" within the "Path
Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry group.
New values are to be assigned by "IETF review" <xref target="RFC8126"/></t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | Bit        | Description                       | Reference       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-12       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 14         | L-flag: Link co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 15         | N-flag: Node co-routed            | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"/>, <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
<xref target="RFC8281"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, <xref target="RFC9256"/>,
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp"/> and
<xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color"/> are applicable to this specification.</t>
      <t>As per <xref target="RFC8231"/>, it is RECOMMENDED that these PCEP extensions can only
be activated on authenticated and encrypted sessions across PCEs and PCCs
belonging to the same administrative authority, using Transport Layer
Security (TLS) <xref target="RFC8253"/><xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13"/> as per the recommendations and best current
practices in <xref target="RFC9325"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="manageability-considerations">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <t>All manageability requirements and considerations listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,
<xref target="RFC8231"/>, <xref target="RFC8664"/>, and <xref target="RFC9256"/> apply to the PCEP protocol
extensions defined in this document. In addition, the requirements and
considerations listed in this section apply.</t>
      <section anchor="control-of-function-and-policy">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>A PCEP speaker (PCC or PCE) implementation SHOULD allow an operator to enable
or disable the multipath capabilities advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV
(see <xref target="OP"/>).</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="information-and-data-models">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t>It is expected that a future version of the PCEP YANG module
<xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang"/> will be extended to include the PCEP extensions
defined in this document.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="liveness-detection-and-monitoring">
        <name>Liveness Detection and Monitoring</name>
        <t>The mechanisms defined in this document do not introduce any new liveness
detection or monitoring requirements in addition to those already defined
in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="verify-correct-operations">
        <name>Verify Correct Operations</name>
        <t>In addition to the verification requirements in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and <xref target="RFC8231"/>,
the following considerations apply:</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the capabilities
advertised in the MULTIPATH-CAP TLV by each PCEP peer for a session
and for individual LSPs.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD allow an operator to view the PATH-ATTRIB
object and all its associated TLVs for each path within an LSP. This
includes the Path ID, weight, backup information, and
opposite-direction path associations.</t>
          </li>
          <li>
            <t>An implementation SHOULD provide a mechanism to log and display
the new PCEP errors defined in this document</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="requirements-on-other-protocols">
        <name>Requirements On Other Protocols</name>
        <t>The PCEP extensions defined in this document do not impose any new
requirements on other protocols.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="impact-on-network-operations">
        <name>Impact On Network Operations</name>
        <t>The mechanisms in this document allow for more complex LSP structures
with multiple paths. Network operators should be aware of the potential
increase in PCEP message sizes and the additional state that must be
maintained by PCEP speakers. The "Number of Multipaths" field in the
MULTIPATH-CAP TLV can be used to control the scale of multipath
computations and state.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgement">
      <name>Acknowledgement</name>
      <t>Thanks to Dhruv Dhody for ideas and discussion.
   Thanks to Yuan Yaping for review comments.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="contributors">
      <name>Contributors</name>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   Zafar Ali
   Cisco Systems
   Email: zali@cisco.com

   Andrew Stone
   Nokia
   Email: andrew.stone@nokia.com

   Chen Ran
   ZTE
   Email: chen.ran@zte.com.cn
]]></artwork>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9256">
          <front>
            <title>Segment Routing Policy Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="K. Talaulikar" initials="K." role="editor" surname="Talaulikar"/>
            <author fullname="D. Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Bogdanov" initials="A." surname="Bogdanov"/>
            <author fullname="P. Mattes" initials="P." surname="Mattes"/>
            <date month="July" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) allows a node to steer a packet flow along any path. Intermediate per-path states are eliminated thanks to source routing. SR Policy is an ordered list of segments (i.e., instructions) that represent a source-routed policy. Packet flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is instantiated called a headend node. The packets steered into an SR Policy carry an ordered list of segments associated with that SR Policy.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8402 as it details the concepts of SR Policy and steering into an SR Policy.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9256"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9256"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>
            <author fullname="Mike Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev">
              <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Samuel Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Colby Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth">
              <organization>Juniper Networks, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shuping Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="4" month="April" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   A Segment Routing (SR) Policy is an ordered list of instructions,
   called "segments" that represent a source-routed policy.  Packet
   flows are steered into an SR Policy on a node where it is
   instantiated.  An SR Policy is made of one or more candidate paths.

   This document specifies the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extension to signal candidate paths of an SR Policy.
   Additionally, this document updates RFC 8231 to allow delegation and
   setup of an SR Label Switched Path (LSP), without using the path
   computation request and reply messages.  This document is applicable
   to both Segment Routing over MPLS (SR-MPLS) and Segment Routing over
   IPv6 (SRv6).

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-27"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8231">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="J. Medved" initials="J." surname="Medved"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="September" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8231"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8231"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
            <author fullname="Balaji Rajagopalan" initials="B." surname="Rajagopalan">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram" initials="V. P." surname="Beeram">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shaofu Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mike Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev">
              <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Gyan Mishra" initials="G. S." surname="Mishra">
              <organization>Verizon Communications Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="26" month="February" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Color is a 32-bit numerical (unsigned integer) attribute used to
   associate a Traffic Engineering (TE) tunnel or policy with an intent
   or objective.  For example, a TE Tunnel constructed to deliver low
   latency services and whose path is optimized for delay can be tagged
   with a color that represents "low latency."  This document specifies
   extensions to the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) to carry
   the color attribute.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-12"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7942">
          <front>
            <title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="July" year="2016"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section. This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.</t>
              <t>This process is not mandatory. Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications. This document obsoletes RFC 6982, advancing it to a Best Current Practice.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="205"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7942"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7942"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8281">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="December" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>The extensions for stateful PCE provide active control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8281"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8281"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8664">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8408.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8664"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8664"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8253">
          <front>
            <title>PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="D. Lopez" initials="D." surname="Lopez"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
            <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
            <date month="October" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) defines the mechanisms for the communication between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or among PCEs. This document describes PCEPS -- the usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) to provide a secure transport for PCEP. The additional security mechanisms are provided by the transport protocol supporting PCEP; therefore, they do not affect the flexibility and extensibility of PCEP.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 5440 in regards to the PCEP initialization phase procedures.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8253"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8253"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-pceps-tls13">
          <front>
            <title>Updates for PCEPS: TLS Connection Establishment Restrictions</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Sean Turner" initials="S." surname="Turner">
              <organization>sn3rd</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Russ Housley" initials="R." surname="Housley">
              <organization>Vigil Security, LLC</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="9" month="January" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Section 3.4 of RFC 8253 specifies TLS connection establishment
   restrictions for PCEPS; PCEPS refers to usage of TLS to provide a
   secure transport for PCEP (Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol).  This document adds restrictions to specify what PCEPS
   implementations do if they support more than one version of the TLS
   protocol and to restrict the use of TLS 1.3's early data.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-04"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9325">
          <front>
            <title>Recommendations for Secure Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Sheffer" initials="Y." surname="Sheffer"/>
            <author fullname="P. Saint-Andre" initials="P." surname="Saint-Andre"/>
            <author fullname="T. Fossati" initials="T." surname="Fossati"/>
            <date month="November" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) are used to protect data exchanged over a wide range of application protocols and can also form the basis for secure transport protocols. Over the years, the industry has witnessed several serious attacks on TLS and DTLS, including attacks on the most commonly used cipher suites and their modes of operation. This document provides the latest recommendations for ensuring the security of deployed services that use TLS and DTLS. These recommendations are applicable to the majority of use cases.</t>
              <t>RFC 7525, an earlier version of the TLS recommendations, was published when the industry was transitioning to TLS 1.2. Years later, this transition is largely complete, and TLS 1.3 is widely available. This document updates the guidance given the new environment and obsoletes RFC 7525. In addition, this document updates RFCs 5288 and 6066 in view of recent attacks.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="195"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9325"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9325"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC9059">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
            <author fullname="R. Gandhi" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Gandhi"/>
            <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
            <author fullname="B. Wen" initials="B." surname="Wen"/>
            <date month="June" year="2021"/>
            <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>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9059"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9059"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy">
          <front>
            <title>Circuit Style Segment Routing Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Christian Schmutzer" initials="C." surname="Schmutzer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Zafar Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Praveen Maheshwari" initials="P." surname="Maheshwari">
              <organization>Airtel India</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Reza Rokui" initials="R." surname="Rokui">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Andrew Stone" initials="A." surname="Stone">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="15" month="September" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document describes how Segment Routing (SR) policies can be used
   to satisfy the requirements for bandwidth, end-to-end recovery and
   persistent paths within a SR network.  The association of two co-
   routed unidirectional SR Policies satisfying these requirements is
   called "circuit-style" SR Policy (CS-SR Policy).

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-spring-cs-sr-policy-11"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy">
          <front>
            <title>PCEP extensions for P2MP SR Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
              <organization>Bell Canada</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Anuj Budhiraja" initials="A." surname="Budhiraja">
              <organization>Cisco System</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rishabh Parekh (editor)" initials="R." surname="Parekh">
              <organization>Arrcus</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="19" month="February" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Segment Routing (SR) Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are a set of
   policies that enable architecture for P2MP service delivery.  This
   document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element
   Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute
   and initiate P2MP paths from a Root to a set of Leaf nodes.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy-11"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8126">
          <front>
            <title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
            <author fullname="M. Cotton" initials="M." surname="Cotton"/>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <author fullname="T. Narten" initials="T." surname="Narten"/>
            <date month="June" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values in these fields do not have conflicting uses and to promote interoperability, their allocations are often coordinated by a central record keeper. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</t>
              <t>To make assignments in a given registry prudently, guidance describing the conditions under which new values should be assigned, as well as when and how modifications to existing values can be made, is needed. This document defines a framework for the documentation of these guidelines by specification authors, in order to assure that the provided guidance for the IANA Considerations is clear and addresses the various issues that are likely in the operation of a registry.</t>
              <t>This is the third edition of this document; it obsoletes RFC 5226.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="26"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8126"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8126"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang">
          <front>
            <title>A YANG Data Model for Path Computation Element Communications Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="Dhruv Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Vishnu Pavan Beeram" initials="V. P." surname="Beeram">
              <organization>Juniper Networks</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jonathan Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick">
         </author>
            <author fullname="Jeff Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura">
              <organization>Nvidia</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="26" month="January" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document defines a YANG data model for the management of the
   Path Computation Element communications Protocol (PCEP) for
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-30"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source:
H4sIAAAAAAAAA+09a3fbNpbf8Suwzoexp5JqyU4m9UmytWW58Y5fa7vNdGfm
zKFIyGZDkRqCtKM26W/f+wBAkCLtuIkzs3vqPhKTeFwA9417L/v9vijiIlE7
8iworuU4my/KIijiLJWTRM1VWuCzeZnGIT89y7MiC7NErp+NJ2cbcvKuUKmG
N1rOslxexFdpkMTplTwukyJe4KCHKbyZU3cRTKe5uoHZoHOzr+shoixMgzkA
FeXBrOjHqpj1F6Hqz22L/vCpAIDUVZYvd6QuIhEv8h1Z5KUuRpub32yORJCr
YEeeZ2WB0IjbLH97lWflguaWb+BXfP4dPhK6gMbzHXk4uTwQ5SKCkfWOfD7a
Ggp4F6TRP4IkSwGepdJiEe/Iv8Ie9KTOcug40/C35Rz/8nchgrK4zvIdIftC
wk+cwkDHA/nnLImW4bW6oae8uOP4rWq8yPKrII1/pr3akeNYpQHsf77Ict4+
bKPmQZzsyPlb7vltiK0GYTavzXkxgLO4CaZBEqTenPis8eIBc2rNPTvmvIQ5
gyDypruEU3hbPWxOpcNMXix1oeban6bQ0AHmgNcrc/wwkHtK5cHcm+WHWF+n
JWDwTZD6b+vT/Rcg8ULl8kQViAxwaodpOPDnvZlS329/4paDVBW1uV/D3HF0
lSWxN/nrLJvjtN6L+rwn2ds48Ke5ph6DKff4NsX3K+vcG8gfgyjw8WXvulyo
FEjCe9NyeP5U0yW27EaRM5Ve+dgBMyBVuMf14V+Xwa2K5aUKr9Msya5iVTs2
AO5K8wjfXlPTlSm/GwDW6+s88Cb9bgnb5z2tz/mDyuOfge80z+oKeg30YE79
vr3hVu1UEGW5v8ZgXqrEe3wHUg4ayA9dfLSEnzxD3qmiuIDR4CdlTnejgAPI
84PxaDj8ZkeIfr8vgymwmSAshBirvAjiFNhVMJvFoYR9i1NAPdx64pihx4YX
eTYFTqxlrv5ZxrkCrpOUBTHN4jooRAh/i3Uhs5lk9pgoNzAOxs1kkV2p4hrQ
H3mxDNwoA3GuijJPcW54Cn80+ssoU1qmWYGQ3MSRgmY3wOIjb4jL61hDu7Ak
gRGpGSxHyzngCeysBtiLDBYZZtDZwciwId9302qFyxDZ9CcV4h5qCaxX4gIB
oDgttJkpSJLsVvOICLe/9At1RUAcwZ5oQMlcjGGQGFk6i7jbuLiGvQ9cSysi
zoAYwyVOoWSqbn+rQPRWDcwPNkODSFQRbsFUySuVwjmHPXELZwGbkAFWwfH2
8DUti3ZkVsKRKDjxfqmVBPg07jss8+J8FUyUpI1Jg8UCGgVTPEqYNoOFgBgr
VKI07yn9NisT6j2QuxEgMCwGIFj2RFE7TSMOEZlJIlaQfsT+w0bTDEwB8ziK
EiXEE6DmIs+iMiQBI9pPgnbi0mDipCIR8csv/wHAfDN6+uzDB9hfIKUEkVwh
poRqAdPSTgkzDK4XNiTPAhCzhIpA20xsFs8Bt2BRqbe9EkAUiyAv4rBMgrwn
Y8RrHebxVPFk0LaBWQHsLcCQJIrWhVCA0iBgFfMsb+wMTIAHGJZ5js/oEEnT
CPII4E+TZYUOQjulioesDYU43oDEDE6DKqtjwcKFLhcg1osO1G+MonGjD/v7
A6d+ae7Wz7lbf0Hd+uECzkEvVBjDXiIKyeAmiyMtiBHg+NewENx3WkcHrgCO
tLMR3GzD+6JqOYat8SZhE7dJwqEjHkpcKZ/yJg4swiegpZVX19gTKMwbFchH
zDPgPrANEchPe9Zmi5Aew0AjwV6rJRNbojOP4gQsNCNOCzsZyAWoWUCFy4XC
FT55Is95KbhELY+C9KoMrpQgcn4LI4JqAgiwdvz9xeVaj/+UJ6f09/PJf39/
eD7Zx79fvN49OnJ/EabFxevT74/2q79VPcenx8eTk33uDE9l7ZFYO979Ed4g
qaydnl0enp7sHq0h9dZ5AS6X+RhQjMoXucJNCvCkmTQi7LM3PpPDbclkigIQ
0IN/eT780zb8Arwv5ckI0flXwRu6WKggx1HgZGGnF3EB+9tD2tKARalEtskb
eanyeUx6yJK3b5YhMhBdwyvmhHBe0co6QCBPxsdn8McrOflnCSg5zoCQyP4g
1O9JhY8BtghQExbGZGLZRTDP4Le6JPsaUA91SubrCngNPafHwPULxmMNKggs
BCEDLHXjacYYxJA3fQfaGxVfXeMG45OeLNNPBEpn89pzBItZkx0DSCqtQHki
j5kQiEkTcVbcBH5ZIRPY7D4Sh5YVPkwVnAkfWNM2XJEWsCXMhOuMiE+3wWxd
W0OYMW8wyGVShSqWaUQQ2GhKPYSjAROd4Ck25g3BagI5Q/pbh9BDxCYEqLHp
2CgstF0Cufjk/BQmeZ3dKlBfe9yFePbRxRnOI+08LA6E0ZKgG55ojBgGtjTx
kRI0qTybVyK5AzRhtB+HiyubbY4KuFlRGImDHEtpPOc9aHobR3gkuwDqWM6D
JfFmeA2yb2H1K/l8U343XdCJTm2fngSMJbJm7GMwRMrmmLwObhSv9JnpDNQf
hHGxrMQZ7UpO+qqEXozMPZYEeDBOyQ2DPF9aKAam+5i6w/vUkTfI5oqsNC6a
tiaGbZyjKPHWUaczbOUgGAB7ezM5/O71Zf/y6AdgcLFRb1CDFaikwWMLZZ7H
RqjxdhGR88sZLBdAIHULzx6MC5w5yYKoT/Z6aMTbKix1ureSBvBKG7z1nTDi
8/h6drXOwpgYgADzF4RayEokiLUpmliACqByRaxNyHVAa70BW/WfqL1tPv2G
tDeW8UGlwVqCRTka2BlorzNQXnQMv7ipPPpv6C4DKRxhGZxXLdRcEGNEtJiq
DprpCaTnOtTWImLwa9CjmkOq0FKKOUgzpKEpoLgCrFvhdgVJrfwWlD7iGrk5
seZinMVo1Aw2/3QZktI5jvOwBMy9KJaJr6sAzI7Z6QUqvP1Q93VuuNyHDz1h
bUoE5G2a3SYquiLRZCFBdFqHU0Ml0we/R+v/qWzXP8UBoId6F8wXaNqgfKcZ
rlUQKVgmzmT1Op6mxikRt+iw7NbUJxZEwWfHX+8d7DNDKNGc0wrUdYQA5A9J
KPgXR182u4OwiueISWTxRlmJZhLo3uFbuW5n5F9ZoWD5ZiGlNxswOBw0E3H4
VhUDcTjrXlCM5EwyBsYi/ugffB08Whwu0a7QLuc2K5MIKZ8ncBzcZ6atyOSo
RaNpVxrzGVcPtlNlquA4X6doos/AoALzkwYl27EagbQCxxYqfkD8hklqt2Dd
BPqfkiEPOo2ylELr2r183d+9vDw/3JNs6jP3izVra7CxzL4BsfrkDvZ1eFwZ
cgboRfaWOXZAGUtlGtcNTAjk5Nfn56dmDi3MFv3tBequKchhGvxvr77+2wsY
DUSA+V2e750cSMUcke3sFpCD5DZYapTAoYoMQ7cz8nIKplYyOdGenAnHYBqg
kaYKI2mY0GAA4X+9mSRbYKqEmZPQEtC/az8rczUuBmJlHXw4/XECTBYdOqXC
E9h+2t30EoyYquUQGv7666/oBduUqz/DlmejlmdbPMAQXm7JbflUPpN/ks/l
Nw95BkN81f/Ef2CM9y3g8c9BElzpzrfvz6HnKfz52HCwIN/vBMTC85ng+LV1
9NOFEfKg03TvCf78+lngQBz7ZUc+mcVXRKD9gBiMpGurl2st2M/MYu2DEHxu
61sjOY0LvQFW1R/hoNZPgbMEZhV9QCd+CfpF9ZgcZFZEL8gkJG4rCP818h5S
FEGeFcbpge7lSM5ilUSWHaMib4AyBvBoawimBcJxLtetgtYHtAYYAIRDEKMh
6X9ksLIHQ1tW3pPxQA3QFyWyPL6KU2qZVXMByRf41DFKMpG9VgJb6azMQyXX
S816b2G0YyueYTdUMtsYCNbbjMACMGawneSk1Sq3yrrHm4NELMocJCs5Ccyo
tNbvU2Ay7AbFvbacjMaCpn/Y/APBlwepnscs7hB8y/CgZ4bOnwyV/1DFC+Rn
lhiq05Xb/SwsYEg+FTiJ3LBi+7u2Rsq6McWsUDCcdkP69pGqO9XZYV2C5MjN
4thUG4gLpeB8CRMP90E/RAXG+CVZE5fHCnA2lL88OZ4Apo4/GB6LI/ATiybW
7IvT0rpaSCgGhTvkBJAhYbk052GZJ1vrMraqiWvcmMP4hmBjyXII3sXzcm4G
QbMaLDTCelgnrsnMovG2iAWyfULOMuudpi0LgYaYampuIzhLVl+svjkrc7LT
Kseb3SjnuGPvB1lOvzzxrCshTsCgOv7+6PKQdpxfUTuYM7PcyRziKnv4fy62
SEjXxUHttyOVXsHu+u8fXXzijznOO34+Dxy+uKjCBayVzTKjFXkqqUFbuD58
ZtnKsyFR9Eq3NewH6GS21OuxjY48ntJjTwYISx7OW2JQ1UELDH4m2Q8oYvKl
oeubvRgzvEE0GvuMbsEC53p3+qJ1MlDnPL4BPkfeITJQkFVjb+TDdluYX2jg
Akbi8Qtt2QH7s61r4Y2157qIMJiiJivdnKtE2MNbkQ5jYHUAca/ObrRmHPGN
t8t4JZSDXr3IUvSKCStPi+Attib2ujZcW+E9e2DUlQvDe/Z2x3/+/qyV9/Cr
B/EecqOaDtbcsQ6DBRhWaGiBaUZ3QaDfG/u7J5xRjGhRw53Ak0Q0Ovyr43mc
BDkOTk3tyFnKXjgKgLBCpRqRpAXIRF2AKkCHX9REnZU9PM+sTI3DJy7IAUuX
xEHuNr9yRezm4XWMEOC1pn9/1xMIDkKcgVC5Jo+j3UaS3ehhxPsGdCWgMEEV
C7YiNA4RQXsHEPwML+zlDCDpaarYP2KfWQfx2QgWu+IjacQZoY9kNF84R8nv
MuORZYYhOOOXLNOiFY6mGfZ+7/Fllw8ZaJttZ/0I+3EvHG349UXgoJ/BYHB3
gy++H+ljwtGhVEwZhBWlwpMKdygVo6ZSwd1IqWjVKeRXcv1E/lFub8h1vtA7
sUxthXw2hFglKW+wk3I+BYlO1zPUzMiZgbOZXVu03/bAMp2hQQSqibNQwZRC
bu4NgCoKyx9jZhEHRzNRWJUkV8YN6q4wZoWxp4yMgnfUd0bmkzycVbanMDKG
AIHNi2cNNaQuj1mL6AmnGljxD8ZoOXchOYs8ngf50kRTGTgpjiuxUD6aEVvH
4nU8GnRpEghwOKsGLfrifZuWrHdRP0TpGbDU1uysUTvNcunAhGxoPqf2jmXf
3bEQcKwKnZ6d7R+e92mv2/Qh7/1DlCJ3HYyaR5CGyl2O4CAcY8GOeP/qsm0k
p12xMUwXS0G67BdZH/+UzRuZFn+5sGrucVvHuQpc6IkNW7OD0AYe7/6IjfH2
ynkO/MsUF9NGj5JlYywfCDuW9MfyJwMoW4FEJ8I1RlKkHF/n3ZNR4Jkf/UYX
FOaiWcsT9P+bV4BJgq+Z3aUDutqTRNkbXKMdzuNokcXWV24Xa82c2kSozSEF
A9m46DQMv0HnN7k5tNsKcd5ylcLaq/Ei6GpX2tpqPIMwgxeVS+Me+H/X8h7d
M3CuyHkYdcNR1/LeH70/eTxtoovdtTvZH1WbyBaLKM5XtYkmT71DpdhqqhRe
3069YvgM8N6eyg5LcHZiNwTczyC6Hy7h2tSJE1BkkNG4S9GNNv3C94CLtNae
TF+BQrglJsB469kp4kV/kbPmsj2OwHBmkDSNiVjFWIrVe1dsqNl8RT7tGkTx
bKYoqJOYDKkOR3L9COPAHrDgpNb+rgXrT1xxY6buFTPTXCeDPW0DZOPR9KQ7
6NRzsB2u+PlJp7vKlLsgb9kJ8n6Znad7/DRj1wGNoN5REIj1L3URx+a7zZ4I
jBM9tzwOXtjjpdlJIw3Zy24XgJpGh/7DRyjMzfA9yo8/Ews21JvyKqxF2LX3
m1hQc5JZb+BVfKNSX603UfcYkFzTqXKVcEDKdbzwIpJ4aFxHOwJiNJBxJqLw
5t3ehdGIeih0Kq38jnIPdYOpinn0rrWYczI96IwoPNeNaqcJ8FZcC4wo7Rhq
IA74kgIjJGlc4M7m9s9op+d9uhGz93gbLTqu8O/uOcTNbgWPNZDC3B8xs578
xVwggdZmImhwulIHVybulQK3eIhGNNMvT8bjMxAMH+F3q0VXm7h5QkvRNToA
iqdzheHwnXFXmKuwKDHY1UaUZmTQ0Nj1sCqJyiUsrhbF2bm05rhwUmWuAUVR
g86kqCYxY8XVzSgRjLncBAK38aD4qnM+XcQYf8y5NXTgqxRnuP/k/JTvaBdJ
EHJUxjhLstxiiQ8qeXy9JA5x6aLi7wKnJ2/xou4tXQbaccenR6fnyCB65jCR
8dsI14ZDE/5b9EOECgNbDyjppnuy2uhodMdpmJRRZX+tBodgJz+0iIPtOmZA
xTzKyO/8Nd9zGL7hH56zeWlHUZBQIlBclByoCGshPy9GcaYevI4ze0Db6+hV
ixHFsGOQbgwWjMYqal+2ucfgS3AKvYpzzMJKlRenk4XGrMG7eJQ+FFpdQcii
DtBgNyU0qgf6VCsIKJOJhiB5hDuMUUoUDAfng32pk40YJhE27Rs8ddFpSAR9
RbYuSFZKsIKmaV/NF8WSA4sNPygorNjdFHugMrMCRtPBqQhIE4ZMDOsJ3Rsf
YJ7GCr86O0B+1fV+WsZJxGScLaobHces7iKZgaDo7TPOAUFx2zEJ+4NYXwnk
Vh90CWdkh1VwFPMrDLhkMfjf2QW/ZhT1+B0qBZhgBE8jhQmbdKlRj8+jnoOm
++Tg9PzN7vl+f3y0e3Hx+422+fn3sFsbP21mbA3Cg/Hj3mgbTOoziq5Yjauo
1G03Xu7tr9xw1/rffdH9iLbjGLR7O9XBKk26uFHWVU0WSo0y8QpUVHm2hcn7
c/ptU8fZd9YbDaH80H9B09EgnSPYWHJnBcacWmAYAooiUVmIVophVK10UWnk
aP1Aut44WATTmO5XT9RVBqNxAD9y1cpp67UiI7/OVca7ziNu9ARQ5ZyjFG3X
qYs+tUzm9GxyYqVRVNKecYqiCUZWYKdMk1hfc4zs7/znEflPdVfjTly3wOHc
Zu/H7w/en77fe//mMflPGLTcfFlUu8NHtdnkNNDnbv7Sun6vDYWjVPEiGA4x
pnzdyrOC+afsIa9GMPGJAgmW7O6ERKzhq6i8SHFgB5x89IATE8KHuTWKPeLM
q0ZPn/qXZ6ks0ySex+hySWmFfuNNtiiYsbZ60eQf5RsyP3cwv4Ls5K5wHJP1
SwNBt73ObvXrs0a3085uLbc+rq+5WTEJZLCl/n0etVQc8k5bZ/TNQhl/PUal
+lkVzYxeipSKTcgQXScwrAedsLaqWI2Vjhu9O43EddKDP3zYaAwicZRPc4PJ
VoF4kln3Dq+QejC4VvDg8IBmpHgCTWA+PwcNHzSb8V2K6e2uVVUR2hAvQmZG
ZO0CSk2AmjFSMJPY5ONRIqnVb0WNLjjrruFmcvGma20EvlZFrK2wF0qmcO4x
L15snfpQygoKMErcqkKw9YYXJdY+6erlMGY5HLg4NmQsrSCRGCVP06os9YLA
XRAXMoKbOMLUY3jdqwWBgZ2CXYx7yAQKj6v9NlahtwEr88TV7eltQHfmTSei
J+A5SxM3jUT8QlH2L/Y13q7V8fFSLXdBv0YnAOUigK20vcTqTAPZdKm1ZtZw
CHqV/BexSe42wLOMhUkWlHMAIrhCYJsxAfaEzEbcoelood5hGt8VuxwaW2L1
oC4VqJbyZpmXgVOvHJavYAVF+6A9ARRJtn4HtgLWbJucfaJierJZoQwhZCcI
DbwMZFXugpDyI2YHedScfmiDEL1rDRdFODYJ/wE6F4rMuiHu5PEEHPnx6/AZ
p0pgwhpszjT5WMuFga5iQz3jbmSXMjqfqTnB4/XZ9rqwu9XeM/zyxAb4m+B9
87xMY5BumAnh3z6cNYJ7yaXyrjBp6xSrWTFzlyCJi4h1wyXa4pzzMjNofBiD
dsRkcjbravzAOsW7zaYCgr6MkCjMXUZUOgiAil2MgUCey1t3CWJdJ0hRzrkO
fN96uszIJlLZXXbYLqlCz1iQL6tEDu0CPUK/poAjQBNMdJs6WeTcWmbbIpWo
K+rr0k8mHstHcWaHN9qamZmgBqYQ0eO587SMz9UiWX59Nv5+EcH/D7G2gGU0
zclxXLT0jMCMrMfHygz3Wx0Gb/WdMPwT5j5f+FPj3CbsF8RG8FblJpezojZz
+YOXL7U0Hnt/xNN6wVG10YwihvDgizzHIjY8PV9F0iPOCHwJttj62rlCr5w9
b1SpuUgUc5i1DVyf6cXo+FJuPYd+4yydAZ5zGRoGam0DL0XaC0bwWpAlHGVB
VCXFd6VpGnXHRVo3KtDYiCmSOYY2xHqZblBNAMq8d3Owj1oX0sZW+XVmMFLN
kIYrDyN8ePCCMVsA87IRzDbDE527nGisUa0Hg9nWK5iwVkFaJBw3MxpHSVhS
yw5BPBPXYKcQbBOSzeKyc9rc3z4nw4h0nqNiXGYgn33JM0T5deIF6DxG3w7e
/KJdzwO2GiKGj3CAXXQfXLtmYpOhUNs9EhyzhCPalLl/BA6Op8W1VaxfiHQ4
uwQzseErfLF52NQWDMCGTTWADcxQbfcAOIzVgAzQQ6fMW52S9ow5RGwq7Enq
6UDnfdzqSvbwFuHlffghfX7SB4//gNSPKtejKqBkUkE6S7hUFHnmkgw+lhxt
inJ1R9iIZKwyIkRQX+Zq8sMqAcqPJUDRRYBMfPqB1Kcfnfw6yM0z4A25BVF0
H7G5zTCTTVwGu65icnkm73Q4XJUz19221oBuBatBu6unrv0smGqwWtQqwWKc
Rexuxt1fDXiOm2lKDIgZkspDUXE76B+CcepHP6RtAdJmzdb4qNHqIx5CmXrH
UEfylVldaRIqoWBXmi4by3BGHZnTh1WaMxZW0ByG6Ud3kwvB41fUlHTnBwd2
4w5ibDcpRd6Qe+wS8twkNYeHjwDalD+KMlpqZRB3HAMplsyChY35tiBNly46
1MdC2BTymmRzUwfJ2tNYxumfZQzKDWrYRSZ4dr8JaVotg9K+z+IkIWSorS4w
lwm2phK5Y0yxPpvqZEYC8TE1Od5g1NgaMEFtIos5nMndWK2JqvHaG6+PUSrH
VvrZCF2XewWvnSvP9tehSoM8znrC6re+7hh8jPb4DaiBh0ZddJcgrRrjaBOa
nlR7Y3MFGJa1DSpPYtKqzXxezaJfnuCduTHfqMgHhnWggt1jXZ/+WBT4B2j8
xFQaWr8t2MihHFTu0Z0GFmZaSVTEQb6G5TfyFQdiV9cD9i5M6NGzwRDB8ssF
9FqG5YATdmU4pUZ4MQQIfLOwSWsnWVUY2XEXOfX5XsmdnZfyBYz+ilieP6x5
d47vsHOjiKOtHuqvp6og2lkQhRW3hqvm3izQu+FfpwW8F7L9Z/2Fx5VfUduN
rrZ/bYz/92bLjm1ap33qAqEBwfkdEPy1NjZMT1uPyD9hFxRX5OkM0yIW1V6F
T4hxRpIqNxELNqRHc4hHlUpg0mhJv5S1qqzmRhCacgalPDs9GsoXJgarJykS
CbhOyoH3r2iVDRDHZ9BjYUoN9bneBbEATP3h4hdAVy+7jkgONzd3hgP6p4cV
E0HRnNtOcvjK9TurYgNHm5vusUkjfgOdLw73+7g1AA/8dTgcDAb4Z/xqpfGo
ajyixiPTePRTxxpHn7zG0YD+WV3jqHWNw5Y1blVgbxHYWwbsrZY1bleNt6nx
tmm8/ZPhAE3W9oCiiz06drrVgK3BGv7GZOcgqKrGF5Zn6QMzQwFpSjV5hRev
oa2odHZQmPuH+70qzsf5lsYDKY5ABy1tEJBtjPuEXMiCYx+P7OMR+ihQkNRA
QS0Ouxg7x5bkCLRhTS/81q/Myb5Aexon+Mfh/kuYl/f8xe7Fxen4cBeLsZon
k5P9/tnp4cml+d1XIxGfqL98URXLMIf28s3wlR0CmKzD5zuGGbUOM2obZuQY
f+tmjD5hM0aPshlbbavYevBmbLcNs+1tRjDNbpRlm+0YSyq0sFc/iJNAv1SO
ZY61oIGQly7YVKKCEWYlJVeRCmelZYIfkrg4P+uhHbzbM+VeWKvr1fLnWPvF
DH9l7jsrHZTssWVaBO/M8TwMvWjZXnpcYVJBW2wdqkLq7F624My16NpwjeiN
mwTtriSybVAkVRU11t7YMg6Y73BmjAX2TZz56i8WBvAsRSEuUJXkNAfjM91i
E2BHwlbuAUca4HUoPN9lM9NUa+MZiFU5VxM7NlxRY+gBJLBH5s7An8h5nrmO
Jk9D4+IFKRe/hzFA9gBf3zI3KlxBZ+oX+kG/iY9X95PWp5JTVQxD7r0EMcVb
+Q/a6Jd/3fq7TxO7d5PUQ4bau2OorcZQw+ZQtZHGBlMfjvcfAe9j04DvSMHx
Uc7tmXv9RAW5ibew6ZzCpZX6xiGN2kifBwraYvK5O7lg8pcPnfrhHfHkD9IT
QcJaTRG0mNdDoy6i1ra5WSmN8Ptk+O+uObqFvXBraNcaVxuOfHuKSroYPche
eTti79Yh2mm9jd67ab62Te3Mv96EouipBYU3vrS6hyPBdQo337hn4tG9E4/u
mXjUOTFtLCB7S1rZZZmmKtEu2X0V4/18pv5qKWJ0hpn0cmFxVQMaE2VOhneb
Rj7CfySq34eO9crMtmYzQvxS7la9rQIDT18ACMfw76g38c622WCrd7zd6wRr
1AbW8GPBGnXO+rR3/OxOsP7UO35ODepbPPK3eNK6xa+/5BZPaH9hl193rAUb
bOMud4L1GFuMsz7DXcZZu7V6xNneZzN09g6Rzsb81QnpsSvavg7JTzKZE/Be
Vkt+0ahQ4SjcdKmp/jU8755m9PBptlemsdTSPc2WnWb40dPUrLoaSnVPs/3w
aUYr01jE/Bgc+Tz23504MnpkHHnaO3n22XFkc2Uay7oeGUcsfd9zeKP/BwT+
cSTxyQReJ4lHO7yPY1efTOB1dnU/jvwfJ/A6SdyLIx+/q/8SAq+zK9ZzpTy0
N3gs/i/gz1IbE5jvu/HrbhP6iqHsy1zNsxsTYKyNejtVMwzwXpRT+wEK9KeK
WwzVD3TVRXm59jA2W3t/+mZ7RNbepT8k6Cb0savCYFdJkcj4cYi0unM037rg
bE9hrTqX8Uye3FhXnx/j2tds1RfxnMIYYb/st2ywsTjEFK5UFf19zJLmL1HB
GNOAvTd4951n0ClIZO3DVvXFXFLED752cW9NqG0hDrNiTqXmiyPJnzeJTTwZ
fnkWm2NoTgRL0ebTj5RATAPBL1dYJQljYSi7m3xOAA8WZgbjX2NJEt+nkcRu
1RgAUIWcizqY9EmtKnAAXy5RL85yzbe+xluOINYjuEWaSTWbIUO4puoMmIiz
4HtxiZ/kND5NP5q3un6kaSmwF0Oz8UY3MaFNtBn0ARz8kARmyElrBfN9v9nC
QPPZzfEzJBjkPlXma5Gl9XX28I42KIIk4424CeKE7rVXEIyMuzgXMxVgtQSY
8xwNhtzEpUY3sQlaqnaZvbDNkebBUlCWNuZ1+3ElPvr05Bphxi2WGeDL0Fzd
xOqWJkwj+l4x9qNvFmuLLVepjEpeJNqjgS1gYu9btfULMS3ChqRAKOQhzcGw
peJgwKPt96Mw1IBrucMJKPy4p6lOghHA9DE79W4B51jhCm73TKkIHUreXPPA
xF/4dVotsWpBuSFz2teBPOSgloVlPV4uxOqiS818qP4NEOIZCDqm3RfG8Vv/
nDDxvtM7vjdc54k78vD0ov+Xc47Q5ahXsV9R9479yk6//pUd/ATuMS4Mky+P
sDrujrxwwQkGl8QYEyaCK/zmc/cnw+pV4mIvBhz9D0UQFrWPPtuv0FpfRvXh
5va1u7fNhb+2RQGs6zDHT1jmK8s6yzP8/OTMZuB7qzook6QCcuWjwxbEtu8H
t8Da0gwgH/SOCizf0YSeGv9B07cssdQbOuR/0yLOML0g8NZRBCnIMe9TxrIS
qLsnu3LsUyFfuJNjznz2RppmsfaiZqgkXTqL83nDe+oFzJtwhzVvML2Gw3n5
BGsmzG31E17Nj3Zx8oZew9ot+N1ACgrjL6Eb9+FX/drPV3f81vXsKyHf178o
816eYJy5+Xlf+4aMfXbuNAXzBEfhWB/Xxv9pvGxpYUb5XCvaflqbyVfY3rck
Nr+X9eCXzweLpSBCCczx/q3IpRvBpWt2RE5zNt8fyRBfHoRtOFYXwt2BbW3r
/8izcTBL84uPb6s/92PbPTWPPxLbPmFFzza9eeoJbO2w3IdtnwLLsBUWcwn7
hWEZtcJiLsO+MCxbrbD4KdBfBhbiCLKDC1CpKPzu5O+E/3+B8KkAyypS1XPV
vxhSGTHT57jdT1RmWtGuPzk/Pz03Q0ueB0+U9WA6mRY0xO6/SeF5HDT0Ypjt
L6vayT1o+LlgGfqSY+u57MuWtLovgUAIyzfePKNNgKUzYPsLwzIkWGy1M4Kj
eUaPTVhcx8PmpXQW8GkntVzh7V9AjB2ruzn8Jo6fYrQ7DotzCA4oyTqS4XsS
k1Vh2DUHUK0NZv8/UA40qU/UqW9ARYnsx/PcZ+T9iMw1cvuwF2TNfHD3+XD0
7MOHz0y5e3FRnbhn4/8rKHezPxy5ebySIZ2wPCa1+LrNpimCYrNQ0ONv/JHI
U7pgeV+HtrtITNVmZY2fcUXb3jx7n3lFXjBW44wec0VPvXnefOYVeSGWX2hF
rXyReI37jLD7ivBnZoqeMf/95cR9l2yFMTbaMTR3M0fxQNXkd+bYDsu/F3Ps
W9p772phna58MfbxYblHlag+XfeIakTF+loIpq3Z7/Tyhehl283zr6YXX1BZ
0XvmpRR/KVjuoZc7Pnj0iQQ0cwSkVymooQ61kNGd7Vus408wjX+np3ZY/q3k
j6/KHhl6qn9U5F9D2ycGlvoXXb4kbUtMnuZbvuaVHAUu2Ze1W3PdFtrxdHt7
E+/ma9nXwv72fOi9e/Zsu/rNfsv0AZmOdMl/f7F+Dj7A0IjQpuOvxrsMKOcS
K8TX08a5Mub5ZHx6fDw52Z/su+AQbeo9Vd/fdtXQMIgCy87cBKaKVVBipYYi
5rJclGOZhvlygb+ZunXANcI80xoH1eb6fKxhpCRLr7yqGlR6Kogwxw24D1ft
weEzPJ+eLMlsucSSmGTPHAVLlQt3uOuXRxcbbolPtz58aO437pzuF4kebuHW
VVXzMdRoDkcRmbNHEKcKv3zG+fxiQaV2Qg61MYe6NXpKQUtP5DFxdeuiaSLZ
bpIYvm9bmA+UVVmpDdTD0JwWvBP146tjGg5T+4IHYsXSK3V25gIuhHes1ach
ZO2j7FRJJIiimEO5eJPqUItOqGuRYQSHTR6ii3cUdwfm48CMDRzGIHbrVcbW
qSJgjg83GmE0tooEh8YgapKqndEnjVVKsSnwSxRrJotr7/vZgMrGnUa1+KIb
lRcUvLMiVY07TKxr8wWWDx9s7bFDP94ElrAfFIE8Bh6XwIlzCAvGxlBaoSnh
MSvpMysYxWHiwdzJ/Lh78p2cZ1EJYJtPDtfJfRmkV3CmFA5EX8SrosT88iYN
ohWdp0trOMKaIkChIEcLVZ3GcZZioJ8rmzZXWPUy1vNubKlKrcD5RmWoKKQM
FaDEzCEiNwdW+3BT1LEqrnCOMRcTIoMENKpoaScXDbLwMJ8pgxf3A8eXjbGo
bFhUphgeT3MWxdFoNjywCdKds3Fhk+puo0EUhP30VTMpd5txi3diMapSBJuP
ruIj0BX1MUpzr2ojcgFPw42pnCE+qVeZ5U+R/WYoPT+I8GqMUNnslmqtrsJW
rVoXl74kfUB4hUmreoQmpbfnCg/5xZ6RJ3V8rcnNj4dy30KBT95QPbcK9XGp
GCOISwKmskiCJZ07ojgTHd7wdBMIoeS5j1enqTyl+MAzFwZnCrPW5e69JDen
rGFDb6KGu0hsNIcLtWPaOJwvAqSJVJ6oAoPqauTRoPmViRkPZkTG9Bkc3MR3
VOgSQyvpY1Kak1NrhRT1wE1nMQikxLVNWw5uUZcxXHGRFfxxBESDnKJXG6V8
pY5/NjeC2MEStPO08NfhMfJzqsQ8iO23eoA4fCGjuTxXRw1b9m+Y68lVQmuU
qzPBcazKgMGmaiUgRVhZYKacJwLKNYl2Q4xrBgvvSjG6AH5ewgm8pSjH/eu8
vIH/Z8AFiXAjFWiLi2FJVD2od/mxBNh+DOh7r9iFTTPJag6X65Msj00MrcsV
/Z9gFuRyN4npQrUWEwkPJrCVyY78OUhiL8hQEDlFOcxwUWQpXeWeZG/jwOsS
0PuBxvffpvjSdR1jMvx5QOW+/udy4nUK4c0AFL5vf4adguaDMCU4/xdMzsQk
maQAAA==

-->

</rfc>
