<?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 1.7.18 (Ruby 3.3.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-stone-pce-update-open-00" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.22.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP-UPDATE-OPEN">PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for updating Open Message content</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-stone-pce-update-open-00"/>
    <author fullname="Andrew Stone">
      <organization>Nokia</organization>
      <address>
        <email>andrew.stone@nokia.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Cheng Li">
      <organization>Huawei</organization>
      <address>
        <email>c.l@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author fullname="Samuel Sidor">
      <organization>Cisco</organization>
      <address>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date/>
    <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 42?>

<t>This document describes extensions to the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) to permit a PCEP Speaker to update information previously exchanged during PCEP session establishment via the Open message.</t>
    </abstract>
    <note removeInRFC="true">
      <name>Discussion Venues</name>
      <t>Discussion of this document takes place on the
    Path Computation Element Working Group mailing list (pce@ietf.org),
    which is archived at <eref target="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/"/>.</t>
      <t>Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
    <eref target="https://github.com/astone282/draft-stone-pce-update-open"/>.</t>
    </note>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 47?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t>The Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) <xref target="RFC5440"/> provides mechanisms for PCEs to perform path computations in response to requests from Path Computation Clients (PCCs).</t>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440"/> outlines the message exchange procedures that PCEP Speakers must follow upon initial connection to establish a PCEP Session. This procedure includes sending an Open Message containing an OPEN Object, which conveys various session characteristics such as protocol timers. The OPEN Object can be extended with TLVs to convey additional session characteristics, such as PCE capabilities (e.g., <xref target="RFC8408"/>) or specific values and ranges (e.g., <xref target="RFC8664"/> and <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-controlled-id-space"/>). This information is exchanged only once per session and cannot be dynamically modified without tearing down and re-establishing the PCEP session, which can be operationally disruptive.</t>
      <t>Additionally, <xref target="RFC5440"/> specify a Notification Message (PCNtf) containing a NOTIFICATION Object, which a PCEP Speaker may use to notify the other speaker of an event.</t>
      <t>This document proposes a generic mechanism allowing a PCEP Speaker (PCC or PCE) to update previously exchanged Open Message information using a PCNtf Message with a new notification called "Open Refresh". This approach mitigates the need to terminate the session to modify any exchanged information.</t>
      <t>Note that <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-controlled-id-space"/> also proposes using PCNtf Message to relay Open Messages between PCEs about each PCE's connected peers. It is anticipated that <xref target="I-D.ietf-pce-state-sync"/> will use a similar notification mechanism with a unique notification type, as the semantics of a PCEP Speaker exchanging its information differ from exchanging information related to a connected state-sync PCEs.</t>
      <t>This document describes a generic extension and mechanism to update Open Object content but future documents <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> describe further semantics on a per TLV basis.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL
NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>", "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
"<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to be interpreted as
described in BCP 14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they
appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
        <?line -18?>

</section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>Open Refresh: The act of modifying content previously exchanged during PCEP Open Message in an ad-hoc manner without terminating the PCEP session.</t>
      <t>Open Refresh Notification message: An Open Refresh notification message is a new Notification Type to be used in the PCNtf Message (<xref target="RFC5440"/>) that will also contain the open information to be refreshed.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operational-considerations">
      <name>Operational Considerations</name>
      <t>This section discusses some high-level considerations that should be considered when supporting Open Refresh. While scenarios described here exist in present-day PCEP, they require explicitly tearing down the PCEP session which gives a clear indication of potential system impact. With ad-hoc manipulation of open information, the impact of a possible change may not be evident so this section attempts to describe some of these considerations.</t>
      <section anchor="capability-change">
        <name>Capability Change</name>
        <t>One use case of the Open message is to exchange device software capabilities and feature enablement to determine whether a PCEP Speaker may support a given operation defined in PCEP extensions. If a PCEP speaker supports removal of a capability using Open Refresh, then all states related to the capability <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be reset and removed and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> follow the guidelines set out by the capability should the other PCEP speaker no longer support the capability. This may impact device-wide state and network traffic. For example, <xref target="RFC8281"/> defines the STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY-TLV to indicate support for PCE-Initiated LSPs. The removal of this capability would result in PCE-Initiated LSPs being deleted from each PCEP Speaker.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="node-wide-property-change">
        <name>Node-wide Property Change</name>
        <t>One use case of the Open message is to exchange device-level configurations or settings. In the case of statefully delegated LSPs (<xref target="RFC8231"/>, the modification of these values may trigger path calculations for established LSPs with a possibility of LSP tear down.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="frequency-of-open-refresh">
        <name>Frequency of Open Refresh</name>
        <t>A PCEP implementation should consider the impact on the entire network before sending frequent Open Refresh Notifications. It could consider applying some form of dampening or back-off mechanism.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="procedures">
      <name>Procedures</name>
      <section anchor="capability-advertisement">
        <name>Capability Advertisement</name>
        <t>A PCEP Speaker indicates support of Open Refresh during the PCEP Initialization phase (<xref target="RFC5440"/>). As per <xref target="RFC5440"/>, a PCEP Speaker sends an Open Message with exactly one OPEN object. This document defines a new flag, OPEN-REFRESH-CAPABILITY (R-bit), in the Open Message Flags field to indicate the support of the Open Refresh feature.</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>R (OPEN-REFRESH-CAPABILITY - 1 bit - TBD1): If set to 1 by a PCEP speaker, the PCEP speaker indicates that the PCEP speaker supports updating the information in the Open message without resetting the session.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <t>If a PCEP speaker receives an Open Message that does not set the OPEN-REFRESH-CAPABILITY flag, the PCEP Speaker <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> send Open Refresh messages to the remote PCEP speaker.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="open-refresh">
        <name>Open Refresh</name>
        <t>An Open Refresh is transmitted by sending a PCNtf Message (<xref target="RFC5440"/>) containing a NOTIFICATION Object with Notification-type=TBD2 (Open-Refresh):</t>
        <ul spacing="normal">
          <li>
            <t>Notification-value=1: Refresh the Open information. The NOTIFICATION Object encodes any TLV that can be encoded in an OPEN Object. The NOTIFICATION Object contains a snapshot of all unmodified and modified TLVs. Upon receiving an Open-Refresh Notification message, the PCEP Speaker compares the newly received TLVs with the previously received TLVs to determine what has changed. An omission of a TLV <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be treated as a removal of the TLV and perform a necessary side effect(s) to the system state as if the TLV was never exchanged during session establishment via Open message.</t>
          </li>
        </ul>
        <section anchor="addingremoving-values-or-sub-tlvs">
          <name>Adding/removing values or Sub-TLVs</name>
          <t>If the PCEP Speaker determines it cannot support the Open-Refresh differential change(s), the PCEP Speaker generates a PCEP Error (PCErr) with Error-type=TBD3 (Unsupported-Open-Refresh) and error-value TBD4 and it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> terminate the PCEP session.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>TODO Security</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="managability-considerations">
      <name>Managability Considerations</name>
      <t>TODO</t>
    </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 RFC 7942.]</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>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="open-object-flag-field">
        <name>Open Object Flag Field</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new bit value in the "Open Object Flag Field" registry:</t>
        <table>
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">Bit</th>
              <th align="center">Description</th>
              <th align="right">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TBD1</td>
              <td align="center">OPEN-REFRESH-CAPABILITY</td>
              <td align="right">This document</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
      <section anchor="notification-object">
        <name>NOTIFICATION Object</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new Notification-type value in the "Notification Object" registry:</t>
        <table>
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">Notification-type</th>
              <th align="center">Name</th>
              <th align="right">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TBD2</td>
              <td align="center">Open-Refresh</td>
              <td align="right">This document</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left"> </td>
              <td align="center">Notification-value</td>
              <td align="right"> </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td align="left"> </td>
              <td align="center">1: Refresh the Open information</td>
              <td align="right"> </td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
      <section anchor="pcep-error">
        <name>PCEP Error</name>
        <t>IANA is requested to allocate a new Error-type value in the "PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values" registry:</t>
        <table>
          <thead>
            <tr>
              <th align="left">Error-type</th>
              <th align="center">Meaning</th>
              <th align="center">Error-value</th>
              <th align="right">Reference</th>
            </tr>
          </thead>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td align="left">TBD3</td>
              <td align="center">Open-Refresh Error</td>
              <td align="center">1: Open-Refresh is not supported</td>
              <td align="right">This document</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
      </section>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <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="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="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>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <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="RFC8408">
          <front>
            <title>Conveying Path Setup Type in PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) Messages</title>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick"/>
            <date month="July" year="2018"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>A Path Computation Element (PCE) can compute Traffic Engineering (TE) paths through a network; these paths are subject to various constraints. Currently, TE paths are Label Switched Paths (LSPs) that are set up using the RSVP-TE signaling protocol. However, other TE path setup methods are possible within the PCE architecture. This document proposes an extension to the PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) to allow support for different path setup methods over a given PCEP session.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8408"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8408"/>
        </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="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="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="I-D.ietf-pce-controlled-id-space">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension to advertise the PCE Controlled Identifier Space</title>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li" initials="C." surname="Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Hang Shi" initials="H." surname="Shi">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Aijun Wang" initials="A." surname="Wang">
              <organization>China Telecom</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Weiqiang Cheng" initials="W." surname="Cheng">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Chao Zhou" initials="C." surname="Zhou">
              <organization>HPE</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="4" month="June" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides a
   mechanism for the Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
   The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multiprotocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths
   (LSPs) using PCEP.  Furthermore, PCE can be used for computing paths
   in the SR networks.

   Stateful PCE provides active control of MPLS-TE LSPs via PCEP, for a
   model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally
   configured LSPs to the PCE.  Further, stateful PCE could also create
   and remove PCE-initiated LSPs by itself.  A PCE-based Central
   Controller (PCECC) simplify the processing of a distributed control
   plane by integrating with elements of Software-Defined Networking
   (SDN).

   In some use cases, such as PCECC or Binding Segment Identifier (SID)
   for Segment Routing (SR), there are requirements for a stateful PCE
   to make allocation of labels, SIDs, etc.  These use cases require PCE
   aware of various identifier spaces from where to make allocations on
   behalf of a PCC.  This document describes a generic mechanism for a
   PCC to inform the PCE of the identifier space set aside for the PCE
   control via PCEP.  The identifier could be an MPLS label, a SID, or
   any other to-be-defined identifier that can be allocated and managed
   by the PCE.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space-00"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-pce-state-sync">
          <front>
            <title>Inter Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Procedures.</title>
            <author fullname="Stephane Litkowski" initials="S." surname="Litkowski">
              <organization>Cisco</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
              <organization>Ciena Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Cheng Li" initials="C." surname="Li">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Haomian Zheng" initials="H." surname="Zheng">
              <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="17" month="March" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   The Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)
   provides mechanisms for PCEs to perform path computation in response
   to a Path Computation Client (PCC) request.  The Stateful PCE
   extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol Label Switching
   (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs) using
   PCEP.

   A Path Computation Client (PCC) can synchronize an LSP state
   information to a Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE).  A PCC can
   have multiple PCEP sessions towards multiple PCEs.  There are some
   use cases, where an inter-PCE stateful communication can bring
   additional resiliency in the design, for instance when some PCC-PCE
   session fails.

   This document describes the procedures to allow a stateful
   communication between PCEs for various use-cases and also the
   procedures to prevent computations loops.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-pce-state-sync-07"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 176?>

<section numbered="false" anchor="acknowledgments">
      <name>Acknowledgments</name>
      <t>The authors would like to acknowledge Dhruv Dhody for the discussion and ideas related to this document.</t>
    </section>
  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
