<?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-18" 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-18"/>
    <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="S." surname="Peng" fullname="Shuping Peng">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
        <email>pengshuping@huawei.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="2026" month="January" day="08"/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 58?>

<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 and RFC 8281 to allow encoding of multiple Segment Lists in PCEP.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 72?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>Segment Routing Policy for Traffic Engineering
<xref target="RFC9256"/> details the concepts of Segment Routing (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 Label Switched Path (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 Path Computation Client (PCC) may request a path with 80 Gbps of bandwidth, but all links in the
network have only 60 Gbps capacity.  The Path Computation Element (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 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 Performance Measurement (PM)/Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (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/Recorded Route Object (RRO) objects
in the &lt;intended-path&gt;/&lt;actual-path&gt; Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) <xref target="RFC5511"/> 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[
   Bhupendra Yadav
   Ciena
   Email: byadav@ciena.com

   Gyan Mishra
   Verizon Inc.
   Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com

   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="RFC5511">
          <front>
            <title>Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF): A Syntax Used to Form Encoding Rules in Various Routing Protocol Specifications</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <date month="April" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Several protocols have been specified in the Routing Area of the IETF using a common variant of the Backus-Naur Form (BNF) of representing message syntax. However, there is no formal definition of this version of BNF.</t>
              <t>There is value in using the same variant of BNF for the set of protocols that are commonly used together. This reduces confusion and simplifies implementation.</t>
              <t>Updating existing documents to use some other variant of BNF that is already formally documented would be a substantial piece of work.</t>
              <t>This document provides a formal definition of the variant of BNF that has been used (that we call Routing BNF) and makes it available for use by new protocols. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5511"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5511"/>
        </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>
