<?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-17" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" updates="8231, 8281" 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-17"/>
    <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="December" day="17"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 69?>

<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 83?>

<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="RFC9862"/> 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="RFC9862"/>.  Each Candidate Path can
contain multiple Segment Lists and each Segment List is encoded by
one Explicit Route Object (ERO).  However, each PCEP LSP can contain only a
single ERO, which prevents the encoding of 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-attrib-object">
        <name>PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>This document defines 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 Object</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 Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) SR Policy <xref target="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy"/>.</t>
        <t>Support for the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is currently defined only for P2MP paths. Support for Point-to-Point (P2P) paths is out of scope for this document. If needed in the future, support for P2P paths using the 
MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV can be defined in future documents. Future documents that extend 
this TLV to support P2P paths SHOULD also define explicit capability exchange mechanisms 
to allow PCEP peers to negotiate support for MULTIPATH-BACKUP with P2P paths.</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>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV applied to a P2P path,
it SHOULD reject the path and send a PCError message with 
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and 
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="OPPDIR-PATH-TLV">
        <name>MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-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 0,
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. If a PCEP speaker receives an
opposite-direction path mapping that is asymmetric or where the
R-flags are inconsistent, it MUST treat this as an error. The PCEP
speaker MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19
("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD4 ("Invalid
opposite-direction path mapping").</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="RFC9863"/>. 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. This empty ERO serves as a placeholder
to maintain compatibility with existing implementations based on the RBNF defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>.
If the head-end receives a non-empty ERO for a Composite Candidate Path,
it MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation")
and Error-Value = 21 ("Non-empty path").</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 Quality of Service (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. If a PCEP speaker receives a PATH-ATTRIB object but the multipath
capability was not successfully negotiated during session
establishment, it MUST treat this as an error. The PCEP speaker
MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an
invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD2 ("Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB
object").</t>
          <t>Additionally, if a PCEP speaker receives a TLV within the PATH-ATTRIB object
(such as MULTIPATH-WEIGHT, MULTIPATH-BACKUP, MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-PATH, or
MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS) but the corresponding capability flag was not set
in the negotiated MULTIPATH-CAP TLV, it MUST treat this as an error.
The PCEP speaker MUST send a PCError message with Error-Type = 19
("Invalid Operation") and Error-Value = TBD3 ("Unsupported multipath capability").</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 0 indicates an unallocated Path ID.
The value of 0 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/PCInitiate 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 MUST 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. This capability is currently defined only for P2MP 
paths. Support for P2P paths with the MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV is out of scope for this 
document. 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>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 does not support a requested backup scenario,
the PCC MUST send a PCError message with
Error-Type = 19 ("Invalid Operation") and
Error-Value = 20 ("Not supported path backup").
Additionally, if a P2P path is sent with a MULTIPATH-BACKUP TLV,
the PCC or PCE SHOULD reject it with the same PCError as above.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="RBNF">
      <name>PCEP Message Extensions</name>
      <t>The RBNF of PCRpt and PCUpd messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC8231"/>, use a combination of &lt;intended-path&gt; and/or &lt;actual-path&gt;. PCReq and PCRep messages, as defined in <xref target="RFC5440"/> and extended by <xref target="RFC8231"/>, directly include ERO and RRO objects within their respective message structures rather than encapsulating them within &lt;intended-path&gt; or &lt;actual-path&gt; constructs. As specified in Section 6.1 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>, within the context of messages that use these constructs, &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>
      <t>Similarly, this document updates <xref target="RFC8281"/> to allow multiple paths in the PCInitiate message 
by allowing multiple ERO objects with their associated path attributes. The PCE-initiated LSP 
instantiation format is updated to:</t>
      <artwork><![CDATA[
   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                          <LSP>
                                          [<END-POINTS>]
                                          <intended-path>
                                          [<attribute-list>]
]]></artwork>
      <t>where &lt;intended-path&gt; follows the recursive definition above, allowing multiple paths to be 
signaled in a single PCInitiate message. Each path is preceded by a PATH-ATTRIB object that 
describes it.</t>
    </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="RFC9862"/>, CP1 and CP2 
are signaled as separate state-report elements and each has 
a unique PLSP-ID, assigned by the PCC. 
For this example, PLSP-ID 100 is assigned 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 Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <H1,M3,M4,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=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 Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=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 Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M2,M1,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=4>>
    <ERO <E1,M4,M3,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M1,M2,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=4 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=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 Path ID=1 R-flag=0
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=3>>
    <ERO <E1,M6,M5,H1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=2 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=0>>
    <ERO <H1,M7,M8,E1>>
    <PATH-ATTRIB Path ID=3 R-flag=1
        <OPPDIR-PATH-TLV OppositePath ID=1>>
    <ERO <H1,M5,M6,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>
        <t>IANA is requested to make new 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         | TBD2 - Unexpected PATH-ATTRIB     | This document   |
 |            |        Object                     |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD3 - Unsupported multipath      | This document   |
 |            |        capability                 |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 19         | TBD4 - Invalid opposite-direction | This document   |
 |            |        path mapping               |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="flags-in-the-multipath-cap-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-CAP 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       |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 0-10       | Unassigned                        | This document   |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 11         | C-flag: support for Composite     | This document   |
 |            |  Candidate Path processing        |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 12         | F-flag: support for processing    | This document   |
 |            | MULTIPATH-FORWARD-CLASS TLV       |                 |
 +------------+-----------------------------------+-----------------+
 | 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-attrib-object">
        <name>Flags in the PATH-ATTRIB Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create a new sub-registry to manage the Flag
field of the PATH-ATTRIB object,
called "Flags in PATH-ATTRIB 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-oppdir-path-tlv">
        <name>Flags in the MULTIPATH-OPPDIR-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="RFC9862"/> and
<xref target="RFC9863"/> 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="RFC9862">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing (SR) Policy Candidate Paths</title>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor"/>
            <author fullname="C. Barth" initials="C." surname="Barth"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="H. Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli"/>
            <date month="October" 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.</t>
              <t>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="RFC" value="9862"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9862"/>
        </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="RFC9863">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Color</title>
            <author fullname="B. Rajagopalan" initials="B." surname="Rajagopalan"/>
            <author fullname="V. Beeram" initials="V." surname="Beeram"/>
            <author fullname="S. Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng"/>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="G. Mishra" initials="G." surname="Mishra"/>
            <date month="October" 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="RFC" value="9863"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9863"/>
        </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="5" month="December" 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-13"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.draft-ietf-pce-sr-p2mp-policy">
          <front>
            <title>PCEP extensions for SR P2MP Policy</title>
            <author fullname="Hooman Bidgoli" initials="H." surname="Bidgoli">
              <organization>Nokia</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Daniel Voyer" initials="D." surname="Voyer">
              <organization>Cisco Systems</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="October" 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-13"/>
        </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="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: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-->

</rfc>
