<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-flexible-grid-15" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IETF" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="3" symRefs="true" sortRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.34.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Ext for Flexi-grid">PCEP Extension for Flexible Grid Networks</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-flexible-grid-15"/>
    <author fullname="Haomian Zheng" initials="H." surname="Zheng" role="editor">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>zhenghaomian@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Young Lee" initials="Y." surname="Lee">
      <organization>CRU</organization>
      <address>
        <email>younglee.tx@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Ramon Casellas" initials="R." surname="Casellas">
      <organization>CTTC</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ramon.casellas@cttc.es</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Daniele Ceccarelli" initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>dceccare@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="July" year="2026"/>
    <area>Routing Area</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <keyword>PCEP</keyword>
    <keyword>Flexi-grid</keyword>
    <keyword>Path Computation Element</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document provides the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions
      for the support of Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA) in Flexible Grid networks.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC4655" format="default"/> defines a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based path computation
      architecture and explains how a Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Label Switched Paths
      (LSP) in Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
      networks at the request of Path Computation Clients (PCCs).  A PCC is said to be any network
      component that makes such a request and can be, for instance, an Optical Switching Element within
      a Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network.  The PCE, itself, can be located anywhere within
      the network, and can be within an optical switching element, a Network Management System (NMS) or
      Operational Support System (OSS), or can be an independent network server.</t>
      <t>The PCE communications Protocol (PCEP) is the communication protocol used between a PCC and a
      PCE, and can also be used between cooperating PCEs.  <xref target="RFC4657" format="default"/> sets out the common
      protocol requirements for PCEP.  Additional application-specific requirements for PCEP are deferred
      to separate documents.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC8780" format="default"/> provides the PCEP extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
      Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) based on the requirements specified
      in <xref target="RFC6163" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC7449" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for systems that have high bit-rates,
      the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has
      extended its Recommendations <xref target="ITU-T_G.694.1" format="default"/> to include an enhanced Dense Wavelength
      Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacings,
      and the concept of the "frequency slot". In such an environment, a data-plane connection is switched
      based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum, creating what is
      known as a flexible grid (flexi-grid). <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/> provides Framework and Requirements
      for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks.</t>
      <t>The term "Routing and Spectrum Assignment" (RSA) is introduced in <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/> to
      refer to the process that determines a route and frequency slot for an LSP. Hence, when a path is computed,
      the spectrum assignment process determines the central frequency and slot width.  The term "Spectrum
      Switched Optical Networks" is also introduced in <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/> to refer to a flexi-grid
      enabled DWDM network, which can be controlled by a GMPLS or PCE control plane.</t>
      <t>This document provides PCEP extensions to support RSA in Flexi-grid networks. The extensions
      in this document apply to point-to-point LSPs; support for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) LSPs is out
      of scope for this document and is left for future work.</t>
      <t><xref target="CRSA" format="default"/> shows one typical PCE-based implementation, which is referred to as the Combined Routing
      and Spectrum Assignment (RSA) <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/>. With this architecture, the two processes of
      routing and spectrum assignment are accessed via a single PCE. This architecture is the base
      architecture from which the PCEP extensions are specified in this document.</t>
      <figure anchor="CRSA">
        <name>Combined Routing and Spectrum Assignment Architecture</name>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
                       +----------------------------+
         +-----+       |     +-------+     +--+     |
         |     |       |     |Routing|     |SA|     |
         | PCC |<----->|     +-------+     +--+     |
         |     |       |                            |
         +-----+       |             PCE            |
                       +----------------------------+
          
        ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>This document uses the terminology defined in
         <xref target="RFC4655" format="default"/>, <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, and <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section numbered="true" toc="default">
      <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" format="default"/> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"/> when, and only when,
         they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="SpectrumAssignment" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object</name>
      <t>This document aligns with GMPLS extensions for PCEP <xref target="RFC8779" format="default"/> for generic properties
      such as label, label-set and label assignment, noting that frequency is a type of label. Frequency
      restrictions and constraints are also formulated in terms of labels per <xref target="RFC7579" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t>The SA Object enables a PCC to request spectrum assignment from the
      PCE and to express preferences such as assignment mode and frequency-slot
      restrictions.  It thus allows the PCE to
      perform the combined Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA) according
      to the PCC's policies.</t>
      <t>Spectrum allocation can be performed by the PCE by different means:

      </t>
      <ol type="a" spacing="normal">

            <li>By means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) where the PCE allocates which label to use for
            each interface/node along the path.</li>
        <li>By means of a Label Set where the PCE provides a range of potential frequency slots to
            allocate by each node along the path.</li>
      </ol>
      <t>Option b. allows distributed spectrum allocation (performed during signaling) to complete spectrum
      assignment. When a range of potential frequency slots is given for allocation, a PC Request SHOULD
      convey the heuristic or mechanism to be used for the allocation.</t>
      <t>The format Routing Backus-Naur Form (RBNF) <xref target="RFC5511" format="default"/> of a PCReq message per
      <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> after incorporating the Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object is as follows:</t>
      <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            <PCReq Message> ::= <Common Header>
                                   [<svec-list>]
                                   <request-list>
               Where:
            <request-list>::=<request>[<request-list>]
            <request>::= <RP>
                         <GENERALIZED ENDPOINTS>
                            [<SA>]
                            [other optional objects...]
          
        ]]></artwork>
      <t>If the SA Object is present in the PCReq message, it MUST be encoded after the GENERALIZED ENDPOINTS Object.</t>
      <t>This document specifies the use of the SA Object in the PCReq message. The use of the SA Object
      in other PCEP messages, such as the LSP Initiate Request (PCInitiate) message defined in
      <xref target="RFC8281" format="default"/>, is out of scope for this document and is left for future work.</t>
      <t>The SA Object-Class is TBD1 (to be assigned by IANA). The SA Object-Type is 1.</t>
      <t>This document does not define a new PCEP capability advertisement for the SA Object. If a PCE
      receives an RSA request and the PCE is not capable of RSA computation, it reports the condition using
      the error procedure defined in <xref target="Error-Indicator" format="default"/>. This error-based approach avoids
      adding a new OPEN Object capability for this extension; operators can use the PCE Discovery mechanisms
      described in <xref target="protocols-and-components" format="default"/> to advertise Flexi-Grid RSA path computation
      capabilities to PCCs.</t>
      <t>The format of the Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object body is as shown in <xref target="SAobj" format="default"/>.</t>
      <figure anchor="SAobj">
        <name>SA Object</name>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Reserved             |            Flags            |M|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                      Optional TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          
        ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <t>Reserved (16 bits): the Reserved field MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</t>
      <t>Flags (16 bits): bits 0-14 are unassigned. They MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</t>
      <t>One flag bit is allocated as follows:</t>
      <t>M (Mode - bit 15): M bit is used to indicate the mode of spectrum assignment. When the M bit is set to 1,
      this indicates that the spectrum assigned by the PCE MUST be explicit. That is, the selected way to
      convey the allocated spectrum is by means of Explicit Label Control (ELC) <xref target="RFC3472" format="default"/>
      for each hop of a computed LSP. Otherwise, when the M bit is set to 0, the spectrum assigned by the PCE does not need to be explicit
      (i.e., it can be suggested in the form of Label Set Objects in the corresponding response, to allow
      distributed SA). In such case, the PCE MUST return a Label Set Field as described in Section 2.6 of
      <xref target="RFC7579" format="default"/> in the response. See <xref target="RSAPathReply" format="default"/> of this document for the encoding discussion
      of a Label Set Field in a PCRep message.</t>
      <t>IANA maintains the "SA Object Flag Field" registry requested in <xref target="IANA-SA-Flags" format="default"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="FSS-TLV" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Frequency Slot Selection TLV</name>
        <t>The Frequency Slot Selection TLV is used to indicate the frequency slot selection constraint in
        regard to the order of frequency slot assignment to be returned by the PCE. This TLV is only applied
        when the M bit is set in the SA Object specified in <xref target="SpectrumAssignment" format="default"/>. This TLV
        SHOULD NOT be present and MUST be ignored when the M bit is set to 0.</t>
        <t>The Frequency Slot Selection TLV format is defined as:</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
            
      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |          Type                 |            Length             |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |S|        FSA Method           |           Reserved            |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             
           ]]></artwork>
        <t>S (Symmetry - 1 bit): This flag is only meaningful when the request is for a bidirectional LSP,
        i.e., when the B (Bi-directional) flag is set in the RP Object (see Section 7.4.1 of
        <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>). 0 denotes requiring the same frequency slot in both directions; 1
        denotes that different spectrum in the two directions is allowed.</t>
        <t>Frequency Slot Assignment (FSA) Method (15 bits):

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>0: unspecified (any); This does not constrain the SA method used by a PCC. This value is implied
             when the Frequency Slot Selection TLV is absent.</li>
          <li>1: First-Fit.  All the feasible frequency slots are numbered (based on 'n' parameter), and this
             SA method chooses the available frequency slot with the lowest index, where 'n' is the parameter in
             f = 193.1 THz + n x 0.00625 THz where 193.1THz is the ITU-T 'anchor frequency' and 'n' is a positive
             integer including 0 <xref target="RFC7698" format="default"/>.</li>
          <li>2: Random.  This SA method chooses a feasible frequency slot value of 'n' randomly.</li>
          <li>3-32767: Unassigned.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>IANA maintains the "Frequency Slot Assignment Method Values" registry requested in <xref target="IANA-FSA-Method" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>Reserved (16 bits): the Reserved field MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</t>
        <t>The Frequency Slot Selection TLV type is TBD2 (to be assigned by IANA).</t>
        <t>If a PCE does not support the attribute(s), its behavior is specified below:

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>S bit clear not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the Error Code "Routing Problem"
            (24) with error sub-code "Unsupported Frequency Slot Selection Symmetry value" (TBD3).</li>
          <li>FSA method not supported: a PathErr MUST be generated with the Error Code "Routing Problem"
            (24) with error sub-code "Unsupported Frequency Slot Assignment value" (TBD4).</li>
        </ul>
      </section>
      <section anchor="FS-RC-TLV" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Frequency Slot Restriction TLV</name>
        <t>For any request that contains a frequency slot assignment, the requester (PCC) MUST be able to
        specify a restriction on the frequency slots to be used. This restriction is to be interpreted by
        the PCE as a constraint on the tuning ability of the origination laser transmitter or on any other
        maintenance related constraints.</t>
        <t>The Frequency Slot Restriction TLV type is TBD5 (to be assigned by IANA).
        This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify multiple restrictions.  The TLV data is
        defined as shown in <xref target="SRCtlv" format="default"/>.</t>
        <figure anchor="SRCtlv">
          <name>Frequency Slot Restriction TLV Encoding</name>
          <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
      
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    | Action        |    Count      |            Reserved           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Link Identifiers                          |
    |                          . . .                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                Frequency Slot Restriction Field               |
    //                        . . . .                              //
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      
          ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t>The fields in the TLV are as follows:

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t> Action: 8 bits.
            </t>
            <ul spacing="normal">
              <li>0 - Inclusive List indicates that one or more link identifiers are included in the
                 Link Set. Each identifies a separate link that is part of the set.</li>
              <li>1 - Inclusive Range indicates that the Link Set defines a range of links.  It
                 contains two link identifiers. The first identifier indicates the start of the range
                 (inclusive). The second identifier indicates the end of the range (inclusive). All
                 links with numeric values between the bounds are considered to be part of the set. A
                 value of zero in either position indicates that there is no bound on the corresponding
                 portion of the range. Note that the Action field can be set to 0 when unnumbered link
                 identifier is used.</li>
            </ul>
          </li>
          <li>Count: The number of the link identifiers (8 bits).</li>
          <li>Reserved: Reserved for future use (16 bits). It MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</li>
          <li>Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction is applied. The length is
            dependent on the link format and the Count field. See Section 4.3.1 in <xref target="RFC8780" format="default"/>
            for Link Identifier encoding. </li>
        </ul>
        <t>IANA maintains the "Frequency Slot Restriction TLV Action Values" registry requested in
        <xref target="IANA-FSRC-Action" format="default"/>.</t>
        <t>A PCC MAY add a frequency slot restriction that applies to all links by setting the Count
        field to zero and specifying just a set of frequency slots.</t>
        <t>All link identifiers in the same list MUST be of the same type.</t>
        <t>The Frequency Slot Restriction Field of the Frequency Slot Restriction TLV is encoded as defined
        in Section 4.2 of <xref target="RFC8363" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="RSAPathReply" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Encoding of an RSA Path Reply</name>
      <t>This section provides the encoding of an RSA Path Reply, in the PCRep/PCUpd message, for frequency
       slot allocation as discussed in <xref target="SpectrumAssignment" format="default"/>. The Spectrum Allocation TLV type
       is TBD6 (to be assigned by IANA). The Spectrum Allocation TLV uses the standard PCEP TLV format defined in
       Section 7.1 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>. The TLV is defined as shown in <xref target="SAfig" format="default"/>.</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC7570" format="default"/> describes how an attribute TLV (<xref target="RFC5420" format="default"/>) can be carried
       in an ERO as a TLV within an LSP Attribute Subobject to provide a per-hop description of an LSP attribute.
       The Spectrum Assignment TLV can be carried in the LSP Attribute Subobject to indicate the spectrum to be
       assigned on the identified link.</t>
      <figure anchor="SAfig">
        <name>Spectrum Allocation TLV Encoding</name>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
           
     0                   1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |              Type             |             Length            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |          Reserved             |            Flags            |M|
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                     Link Identifier                           |
    |                          . . .                                |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                    Allocated Spectrum                         |
    //                        . . . .                              //
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    
         ]]></artwork>
      </figure>
      <ul spacing="normal">
        <li>Type (16 bits): The type of the TLV (TBD6).</li>
        <li>Length (16 bits): The length of the Value portion of the TLV in bytes. The Type and Length
          fields and any padding are not included in the Length field.</li>
        <li>Reserved (16 bits): The Reserved field MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</li>
        <li>Flags (16 bits): bits 0-14 are unassigned. They MUST be set to zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver.</li>
        <li>
          <t>M (Mode - bit 15): 1 bit
          </t>
          <ul spacing="normal">
            <li>1 indicates the allocation is under Explicit Label Control.</li>
            <li>0 indicates the allocation is expressed in Label Sets.</li>
          </ul>
        </li>
        <li>Link Identifier: Identifies the link ID for which the spectrum allocation is applied. See Section 4.3.1 in <xref target="RFC8780" format="default"/>
          for Link Identifier encoding.</li>
        <li>Allocated Spectrum (variable): Indicates the spectrum allocated to the link identifier. The field
          carries one or more Flexi-Grid Labels encoded as defined in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC7699" format="default"/>. A
          single allocated slot is encoded as one 64-bit Flexi-Grid Label; multiple allocated slots are encoded
          as the compound label described in Section 4.3 of <xref target="RFC7699" format="default"/>.</li>
      </ul>
      <t>IANA maintains the "Spectrum Allocation TLV Flag Field" registry requested in <xref target="IANA-SA-TLV-Flags" format="default"/>.</t>
      <section anchor="Error-Indicator" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Error Indicator</name>
        <t>To indicate errors associated with the RSA request, a new Error-Type (TBD7, Flexi-Grid RSA
          Error) and subsequent error-value are defined for inclusion in the PCEP-ERROR Object:

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Error-Type=TBD7 (Flexi-Grid RSA Error); Error-value=1: if a PCE receives an RSA request and the PCE is not capable
            of RSA computation, the PCE MUST send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object (Error-Type=TBD7)
            and an Error-value (Error-value=1). The PCE stops processing the request.  The corresponding RSA
            computation MUST be cancelled at the PCC.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>Note that generic resource exhaustion at the PCE (e.g., insufficient memory) is not signaled via
         this Error-Type; the PCEP overload mechanism (see Section 7.15 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>) applies.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="NO-PATH-Indicator" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>NO-PATH Indicator</name>
        <t>To communicate the reasons for not being able to find RSA for the path request, the NO-PATH
          Object can be used in the corresponding response.  The format of the NO-PATH Object body is defined
          in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.  The object MAY contain a NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV to provide additional information about
          why a path computation has failed.</t>
        <t> One new bit flag is defined to be carried in the Flags field in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV carried
          in the NO-PATH Object.

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>Bit TBD8: When set, the PCE indicates no feasible path was found that meets all the
            optical spectrum constraints associated with the path computation request.</li>
        </ul>
        <t>This flag is specific to spectrum-related path computation failures; other path-computation
          failure reasons continue to use the existing PCEP NO-PATH mechanisms.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Management" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Manageability Considerations</name>
      <t>Manageability of flexi-grid Routing and Spectrum Assignment (RSA) with PCE includes the
       following considerations:</t>
      <section anchor="control-function" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Control of Function and Policy</name>
        <t>In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>, a
         PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following PCEP session parameters on a PCC:

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li> The ability to send a Flexi-Grid RSA request. </li>
        </ul>
        <t>In addition to the parameters already listed in Section 8.1 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>,
         a PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following PCEP session parameters on a PCE:

        </t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>The support for Flexi-Grid RSA.</li>
          <li>A set of Flexi-Grid RSA specific policies (authorized sender, request rate limiter, etc).</li>
        </ul>
        <t>These parameters can be configured as default parameters for any PCEP session the PCEP speaker
         participates in, or can apply to a specific session with a given PCEP peer or a specific group of
         sessions with a specific group of PCEP peers.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="info-dm" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Information and Data Models</name>
        <t>Extensions to the PCEP YANG module can be defined to cover the Flexi-Grid RSA information introduced
          in this document. Liveness Detection and Monitoring Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply
          any new liveness detection and monitoring requirements in addition to those already listed in Section
          8.3 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="correct-operation" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Verifying Correct Operation</name>
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new verification requirements in addition to
          those already listed in section 8.4 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="protocols-and-components" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components</name>
        <t>The PCE Discovery mechanisms (<xref target="RFC5088" format="default"/> and <xref target="RFC5089" format="default"/>) can be used
          to advertise Flexi-Grid RSA path computation capabilities to PCCs.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="impact-on-network-operation" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Impact on Network Operation</name>
        <t>Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new network operation requirements in addition
          to those already listed in Section 8.6 of <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Implementation" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Implementation Status</name>
      <t>[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This whole section and the reference to <xref target="RFC7942" format="default"/> are to be
       removed before publication as an RFC.]</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" format="default"/>.  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" format="default"/>, "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="CTTC" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>CTTC</name>
        <t>CTTC has implemented several aspects of the extensions defined by earlier revisions of this
          document in a research Path Computation Element and SDN controller.  The PCC and PCE are built
          from the same codebase, and the implementation uses private codepoints for the new object and
          TLVs pending IANA allocation.  Details are as follows:</t>
        <artwork align="left" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
              
Organization: Centre Tecnologic de Telecomunicacions de
   Catalunya (CTTC)

Implementation: Research PCE and SDN controller.

Description: The Spectrum Assignment (SA) Object is
   implemented using a private Object-Class codepoint and is
   encoded after the ENDPOINTS Object.  The M (Mode) flag is
   supported for spectrum assignment by means of Explicit
   Label Control (ELC), which is also the default behavior
   when the SA Object is absent; the spectrum assignment
   algorithms in use allocate ELC, and requests for
   non-explicit assignment raise an error.  The Frequency
   Slot Selection TLV is implemented, including the S
   (Symmetry) bit (the default for bidirectional LSPs) and
   the First-Fit (default) and Random assignment methods.
   The Frequency Slot Restriction TLV is partially
   implemented: the TLV is parsed in full, and restrictions
   that apply to all links (Count field set to zero) are
   supported, in practice as a single frequency slot that
   applies end to end for fixed transceivers.  The new error
   codes are not implemented; generic PCEP errors (e.g.,
   NO-PATH) are used instead.

Maturity Level: Research prototype used in research
   projects; not aimed at interoperability or product
   release.  Interoperability has been tested only between
   the PCC and PCE built from the same codebase.

Coverage: Partial.

Contact: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
              
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Security" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>This document has no requirement for a change to the security models within PCEP. The security
       considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440" format="default"/> and the use of TLS to provide a secure
       transport for PCEP as described in <xref target="RFC8253" format="default"/> apply to the extensions defined in
       this document. The additional information distributed in order to address the RSA problem represents
       a disclosure of network capabilities that an operator might wish to keep private. Operators are
       encouraged to secure this information.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="IANA" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <t>This document requests the following IANA actions.</t>
      <section anchor="new-object" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New PCEP Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new object class from the "PCEP Objects" registry
          (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-objects):</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

+====================+======+========================+===========+
| Object-Class Value | Name | Object-Type            | Reference |
+====================+======+========================+===========+
| TBD1               | SA   | 0: Reserved            |           |
|                    |      +------------------------+-----------+
|                    |      | 1: Spectrum Assignment | [This.I-D]|
|                    |      +------------------------+-----------+
|                    |      | 2-15: Unassigned       |           |
+--------------------+------+------------------------+-----------+

            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="IANA-SA-Flags" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>SA Object Flag Field</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create the "SA Object Flag Field" registry within the "Path Computation
          Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. New values are to be assigned by IETF Review
          <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Bits are numbered from bit 0 as the most significant bit.</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
      
        +=======+==========================+===========+
        | Bit   | Description              | Reference |
        +=======+==========================+===========+
        | 0-14  | Unassigned               |           |
        +-------+--------------------------+-----------+
        | 15    | Spectrum Assignment Mode | [This.I-D]|
        +-------+--------------------------+-----------+
      
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Selection TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new TLV type for the Frequency Slot Selection TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry
          (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators).</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+==========================+===========+
            | Value | Description              | Reference |
            +=======+==========================+===========+
            | TBD2  | Frequency Slot Selection | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+--------------------------+-----------+
          
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="IANA-FSA-Method" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Frequency Slot Assignment Method Values</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create the "Frequency Slot Assignment Method Values" registry within the
          "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. New values are to be assigned by
          IETF Review <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=========+=============+===========+
            | Value   | Description | Reference |
            +=========+=============+===========+
            | 0       | Unspecified | [This.I-D]|
            +---------+-------------+-----------+
            | 1       | First-Fit   | [This.I-D]|
            +---------+-------------+-----------+
            | 2       | Random      | [This.I-D]|
            +---------+-------------+-----------+
            | 3-32767 | Unassigned  |           |
            +---------+-------------+-----------+
          
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New PCEP TLV: Frequency Slot Restriction TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new TLV type for the Frequency Slot Restriction TLV from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" registry
          (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators).</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+============================+===========+
            | Value | Description                | Reference |
            +=======+============================+===========+
            | TBD5  | Frequency Slot Restriction | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+----------------------------+-----------+
         
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="IANA-FSRC-Action" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Frequency Slot Restriction TLV Action Values</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create the "Frequency Slot Restriction TLV Action Values" registry
          within the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. New values are to be assigned
          by IETF Review <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>.</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+=================+===========+
            | Value | Description     | Reference |
            +=======+=================+===========+
            | 0     | Inclusive List  | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+-----------------+-----------+
            | 1     | Inclusive Range | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+-----------------+-----------+
            | 2-255 | Unassigned      |           |
            +-------+-----------------+-----------+
         
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New PCEP TLV: Spectrum Allocation TLV</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new TLV type for the Spectrum Allocation TLV from the "PCEP TLV
          Type Indicators" registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-indicators).</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+=====================+===========+
            | Value | Description         | Reference |
            +=======+=====================+===========+
            | TBD6  | Spectrum Allocation | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+---------------------+-----------+
          
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="IANA-SA-TLV-Flags" numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>Spectrum Allocation TLV Flag Field</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to create the "Spectrum Allocation TLV Flag Field" registry within the "Path
          Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry. New values are to be assigned by IETF Review
          <xref target="RFC8126" format="default"/>. Bits are numbered from bit 0 as the most significant bit.</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+==========================+===========+
            | Bit   | Description              | Reference |
            +=======+==========================+===========+
            | 0-14  | Unassigned               |           |
            +-------+--------------------------+-----------+
            | 15    | Spectrum Allocation Mode | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+--------------------------+-----------+
          
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New No-Path Reasons</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new bit flag from the "PCEP NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field" registry
          (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv).</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[
          
            +=======+=============================+===========+
            | Bit   | Description                 | Reference |
            +=======+=============================+===========+
            | TBD8  | No spectrum constraints met | [This.I-D]|
            +-------+-----------------------------+-----------+
          
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New Error-Types and Error-Values</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new Error-Type and Error-value from the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry
          (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-error-object).</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

+============+================+====================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning        | Error-value        | Reference |
+============+================+====================+===========+
| TBD7       | Flexi-Grid RSA | 1: RSA computation | [This.I-D]|
|            | Error          | not supported      |           |
+------------+----------------+--------------------+-----------+

            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section numbered="true" toc="default">
        <name>New Error-Values for Existing Error Type (24)</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate two new PathErr values for the Existing Error Type (24):</t>
        <artwork align="center" name="" type="" alt=""><![CDATA[

+============+=================+====================+===========+
| Error-Type | Meaning         | Error-value        | Reference |
+============+=================+====================+===========+
| 24         | Routing Problem | TBD3: Unsupported  | [This.I-D]|
|            |                 | Frequency Slot     |           |
|            |                 | Selection Symmetry |           |
|            |                 | value              |           |
|            |                 +--------------------+-----------+
|            |                 | TBD4: Unsupported  | [This.I-D]|
|            |                 | Frequency Slot     |           |
|            |                 | Assignment value   |           |
+------------+-----------------+--------------------+-----------+

            ]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Acknowledgements" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>Thanks to Francesco Lazzeri for the technical contribution, and Quan Xiong, Dhruv Dhody and Adrian Farrel for useful comments.
      Thanks to Ketan Talaulikar for his detailed AD review and helpful suggestions.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="Contrib" numbered="true" toc="default">
      <name>Contributors' Address</name>
      <artwork align="left" alt="" name="" type=""><![CDATA[
Ricard Vilalta
CTTC
Spain

Email: ricard.vilalta@cttc.es
    ]]></artwork>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references>
      <name>References</name>
      <references>
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
          <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="RFC3472" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3472" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3472.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions</title>
            <author fullname="P. Ashwood-Smith" initials="P." role="editor" surname="Ashwood-Smith"/>
            <author fullname="L. Berger" initials="L." role="editor" surname="Berger"/>
            <date month="February" year="2003"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes extensions to Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) signaling required to support Generalized MPLS. Generalized MPLS extends the MPLS control plane to encompass time-division (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, SONET/SDH), wavelength (optical lambdas) and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). This document presents a CR-LDP specific description of the extensions. A generic functional description can be found in separate documents. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3472"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3472"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5088" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5088" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5088.xml">
          <front>
            <title>OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery</title>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Ikejiri" initials="Y." surname="Ikejiri"/>
            <author fullname="R. Zhang" initials="R." surname="Zhang"/>
            <date month="January" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCEs), along with information that can be used by the PCC for PCE selection. When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to announce PCEs consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose, this document defines extensions to the Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery information within an OSPF area or within the entire OSPF routing domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5088"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5088"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5089" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5089" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5089.xml">
          <front>
            <title>IS-IS Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery</title>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Ikejiri" initials="Y." surname="Ikejiri"/>
            <author fullname="R. Zhang" initials="R." surname="Zhang"/>
            <date month="January" year="2008"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>There are various circumstances where it is highly desirable for a Path Computation Client (PCC) to be able to dynamically and automatically discover a set of Path Computation Elements (PCEs), along with information that can be used by the PCC for PCE selection. When the PCE is a Label Switching Router (LSR) participating in the Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), or even a server participating passively in the IGP, a simple and efficient way to announce PCEs consists of using IGP flooding. For that purpose, this document defines extensions to the Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol for the advertisement of PCE Discovery information within an IS-IS area or within the entire IS-IS routing domain. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5089"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5089"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5420" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5420" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5420.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." role="editor" surname="Farrel"/>
            <author fullname="D. Papadimitriou" initials="D." surname="Papadimitriou"/>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="A. Ayyangar" initials="A." surname="Ayyangar"/>
            <date month="February" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) may be established using the Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) extensions. This protocol includes an object (the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object) that carries a Flags field used to indicate options and attributes of the LSP. That Flags field has eight bits, allowing for eight options to be set. Recent proposals in many documents that extend RSVP-TE have suggested uses for each of the previously unused bits.</t>
              <t>This document defines a new object for RSVP-TE messages that allows the signaling of further attribute bits and also the carriage of arbitrary attribute parameters to make RSVP-TE easily extensible to support new requirements. Additionally, this document defines a way to record the attributes applied to the LSP on a hop-by-hop basis.</t>
              <t>The object mechanisms defined in this document are equally applicable to Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Packet Switch Capable (PSC) LSPs and to GMPLS non-PSC LSPs.</t>
              <t>This document replaces and obsoletes the previous version of this work, published as RFC 4420. The only change is in the encoding of the Type-Length-Variable (TLV) data structures. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5420"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5420"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml">
          <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="RFC5511" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5511" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5511.xml">
          <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="RFC7570" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7570" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7570.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Label Switched Path (LSP) Attribute in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)</title>
            <author fullname="C. Margaria" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"/>
            <author fullname="G. Martinelli" initials="G." surname="Martinelli"/>
            <author fullname="S. Balls" initials="S." surname="Balls"/>
            <author fullname="B. Wright" initials="B." surname="Wright"/>
            <date month="July" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 5420 extends RSVP-TE to specify or record generic attributes that apply to the whole of the path of a Label Switched Path (LSP). This document defines an extension to the RSVP Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) to allow them to specify or record generic attributes that apply to a given hop.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7570"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7570"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7579" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7579" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7579.xml">
          <front>
            <title>General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS-Controlled Networks</title>
            <author fullname="G. Bernstein" initials="G." role="editor" surname="Bernstein"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Lee"/>
            <author fullname="D. Li" initials="D." surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="W. Imajuku" initials="W." surname="Imajuku"/>
            <author fullname="J. Han" initials="J." surname="Han"/>
            <date month="June" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) can be used to control a wide variety of technologies. In some of these technologies, network elements and links may impose additional routing constraints such as asymmetric switch connectivity, non-local label assignment, and label range limitations on links.</t>
              <t>This document provides efficient, protocol-agnostic encodings for general information elements representing connectivity and label constraints as well as label availability. It is intended that protocol-specific documents will reference this memo to describe how information is carried for specific uses.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7579"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7579"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7699" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7699" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7699.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <author fullname="D. King" initials="D." surname="King"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Li" initials="Y." surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="F. Zhang" initials="F." surname="Zhang"/>
            <date month="November" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>GMPLS supports the description of optical switching by identifying entries in fixed lists of switchable wavelengths (called grids) through the encoding of lambda labels. Work within the ITU-T Study Group 15 has defined a finer-granularity grid, and the facility to flexibly select different widths of spectrum from the grid. This document defines a new GMPLS lambda label format to support this flexi-grid.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFCs 3471 and 6205 by introducing a new label format.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7699"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7699"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8126" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8126.xml">
          <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="RFC8174" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8174.xml">
          <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="RFC8253" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8253.xml">
          <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="RFC8363" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8363" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8363.xml">
          <front>
            <title>GMPLS OSPF-TE Extensions in Support of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks</title>
            <author fullname="X. Zhang" initials="X." surname="Zhang"/>
            <author fullname="H. Zheng" initials="H." surname="Zheng"/>
            <author fullname="R. Casellas" initials="R." surname="Casellas"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="D. Ceccarelli" initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli"/>
            <date month="May" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication standardization sector (ITU-T) has extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining channel spacings, a set of nominal central frequencies, and the concept of the "frequency slot". Corresponding techniques for data-plane connections are known as "flexi-grid".</t>
              <t>Based on the characteristics of flexi-grid defined in G.694.1 and in RFCs 7698 and 7699, this document describes the Open Shortest Path First - Traffic Engineering (OSPF-TE) extensions in support of GMPLS control of networks that include devices that use the new flexible optical grid.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8363"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8363"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8779" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8779" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8779.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for GMPLS</title>
            <author fullname="C. Margaria" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Margaria"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="F. Zhang" initials="F." role="editor" surname="Zhang"/>
            <date month="July" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>A Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Additional requirements for GMPLS are identified in RFC 7025.</t>
              <t>This memo provides extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of the GMPLS control plane to address those requirements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8779"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8779"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8780" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8780" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8780.xml">
          <front>
            <title>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Lee"/>
            <author fullname="R. Casellas" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Casellas"/>
            <date month="July" year="2020"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document provides Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). Path provisioning in WSONs requires an RWA process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical path computation.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8780"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8780"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references>
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC4655" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4655.xml">
          <front>
            <title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <author fullname="J.-P. Vasseur" initials="J.-P." surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="J. Ash" initials="J." surname="Ash"/>
            <date month="August" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Constraint-based path computation is a fundamental building block for traffic engineering systems such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Path computation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks is complex and may require special computational components and cooperation between the different network domains.</t>
              <t>This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based model to address this problem space. This document does not attempt to provide a detailed description of all the architectural components, but rather it describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture from which solutions may be constructed. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4655"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4655"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4657" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements</title>
            <author fullname="J. Ash" initials="J." role="editor" surname="Ash"/>
            <author fullname="J.L. Le Roux" initials="J.L." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="September" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The PCE model is described in the "PCE Architecture" document and facilitates path computation requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs) to Path Computation Elements (PCEs). This document specifies generic requirements for a communication protocol between PCCs and PCEs, and also between PCEs where cooperation between PCEs is desirable. Subsequent documents will specify application-specific requirements for the PCE communication protocol. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4657"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4657"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC6163" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6163" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6163.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Lee"/>
            <author fullname="G. Bernstein" initials="G." role="editor" surname="Bernstein"/>
            <author fullname="W. Imajuku" initials="W." surname="Imajuku"/>
            <date month="April" year="2011"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document provides a framework for applying Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element (PCE) architecture to the control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). In particular, it examines Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) of optical paths.</t>
              <t>This document focuses on topological elements and path selection constraints that are common across different WSON environments; as such, it does not address optical impairments in any depth. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="6163"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC6163"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7449" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7449" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7449.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment</title>
            <author fullname="Y. Lee" initials="Y." role="editor" surname="Lee"/>
            <author fullname="G. Bernstein" initials="G." role="editor" surname="Bernstein"/>
            <author fullname="J. Martensson" initials="J." surname="Martensson"/>
            <author fullname="T. Takeda" initials="T." surname="Takeda"/>
            <author fullname="T. Tsuritani" initials="T." surname="Tsuritani"/>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <date month="February" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs). Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) process. From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation. Requirements for PCEP extensions in support of optical impairments will be addressed in a separate document.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7449"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7449"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7698" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7698.xml">
          <front>
            <title>Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks</title>
            <author fullname="O. Gonzalez de Dios" initials="O." role="editor" surname="Gonzalez de Dios"/>
            <author fullname="R. Casellas" initials="R." role="editor" surname="Casellas"/>
            <author fullname="F. Zhang" initials="F." surname="Zhang"/>
            <author fullname="X. Fu" initials="X." surname="Fu"/>
            <author fullname="D. Ceccarelli" initials="D." surname="Ceccarelli"/>
            <author fullname="I. Hussain" initials="I." surname="Hussain"/>
            <date month="November" year="2015"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for systems that have high bit-rates, the International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended its Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal central frequencies, channel spacings, and the concept of the "frequency slot". In such an environment, a data-plane connection is switched based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the optical spectrum, creating what is known as a flexible grid (flexi-grid).</t>
              <t>Given the specific characteristics of flexi-grid optical networks and their associated technology, this document defines a framework and the associated control-plane requirements for the application of the existing GMPLS architecture and control-plane protocols to the control of flexi-grid DWDM networks. The actual extensions to the GMPLS protocols will be defined in companion documents.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7698"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7698"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC7942" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.7942.xml">
          <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="RFC8281" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8281" xml:base="https://bib.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.8281.xml">
          <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="ITU-T_G.694.1" target="https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.1">
          <front>
            <title>
            SERIES G: TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS AND MEDIA, DIGITAL SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS; Digital networks; Spectral grids for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid
            </title>
            <author initials="T" surname="ITU-" fullname="ITU-T G.694.1"/>
            <date month="October" year="2020"/>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="ITU-T Rec. G.694.1" value=""/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
