--- 1/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09.txt 2015-11-19 10:15:03.427498194 -0800 +++ 2/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10.txt 2015-11-19 10:15:03.495499850 -0800 @@ -1,32 +1,33 @@ PCE Working Group D. Dhody Internet-Draft U. Palle Intended status: Experimental Huawei Technologies -Expires: March 23, 2016 R. Casellas +Expires: May 22, 2016 R. Casellas CTTC - September 20, 2015 + November 19, 2015 - Standard Representation of Domain-Sequence - draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-09 + Domain Subobjects for Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication + Protocol (PCEP). + draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-10 Abstract The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous System (AS). This - document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a - Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains + document specifies a representation and encoding of a Domain- + Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain constrained shortest paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain identifiers. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. @@ -34,21 +35,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on March 23, 2016. + This Internet-Draft will expire on May 22, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -56,67 +57,67 @@ to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Detail Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.1. Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2. Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Domain-Sequence Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Include Route Object (IRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4.2. Update in IRO specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.3. IRO for Domain-Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.3.1. PCC Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.4.3.2. PCE Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 3.5.1. Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.5.1.1. Autonomous system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + 3.5.1.2. IGP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) . . . . . . . . 15 - 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 + 3.7. Explicit Route Object (ERO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.1. Inter-Area Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 4.2. Inter-AS Path Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2.1. Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.2.2. Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3. Boundary Node and Inter-AS-Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 4.4. PCE Serving multiple Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.5. P2MP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 + 4.6. Hierarchical PCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 - 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 5. Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.1. Relationship to PCE Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 5.2. Relationship to RSVP-TE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 6.1. New Subobjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 + 8. Manageability Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 8.1. Control of Function and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 8.2. Information and Data Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 + 8.3. Liveness Detection and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 8.4. Verify Correct Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 8.5. Requirements On Other Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 8.6. Impact On Network Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 + 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 + 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 1. Introduction A Path Computation Element (PCE) may be used to compute end-to-end paths across multi-domain environments using a per-domain path computation technique [RFC5152]. The backward recursive path computation (BRPC) mechanism [RFC5441] also defines a PCE-based path computation procedure to compute inter-domain constrained path for (G)MPLS TE LSPs. However, both per-domain and BRPC techniques assume that the sequence of domains to be crossed from source to destination @@ -149,34 +150,38 @@ [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]. 1.1. Scope The procedures described in this document are experimental. The experiment is intended to enable research for the usage of Domain- Sequence at the PCEs for inter-domain paths. For this purpose this document specifies new domain subobjects as well as how they incorporate with existing subobjects to represent a Domain-Sequence. + The experiment will end two years after the RFC is published. At + that point, the RFC authors will attempt to determine how widely this + has been implemented and deployed. + This document does not change the procedures for handling existing subobjects in PCEP. The new subobjects introduced by this document will not be understood - by a legacy implementation. If one of the subobjects is received in - a PCEP object that does not understand it, it will behave as - described in Section 3.4.3. Therefore, it is assumed that this - experiment will be conducted only when both the PCE and the PCC form - part of the experiment. It is possible that a PCC or PCE can operate - with peers some of which form part of the experiment and some that do - not. In this case, since no capabilities exchange is used to - identify which nodes can use these extensions, manual configuration - should be used to determine which peerings form part of the - experiment. + by legacy implementations. If a legacy implementation receives one + of the subobjects that it does not understand in a PCEP object, the + legacy implementation will behave as described in Section 3.4.3. + Therefore, it is assumed that this experiment will be conducted only + when both the PCE and the PCC form part of the experiment. It is + possible that a PCC or PCE can operate with peers some of which form + part of the experiment and some that do not. In this case, since no + capabilities exchange is used to identify which nodes can use these + extensions, manual configuration should be used to determine which + peerings form part of the experiment. When the result of implementation and deployment are available, this document will be updated and refined, and then be moved from Experimental to Standard Track. 1.2. Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. @@ -542,20 +545,25 @@ that has this link. * Otherwise, it assumes that the subobject belongs to the current Area. o In case the current PCE is not responsible for the path computation in the current AS or Area, then the PCE selects the "next PCE" in the domain-sequence based on the current AS and Area. + Note that it is advised that, PCC should use AS and Area subobject + while building the domain-sequence in IRO and avoid using other + mechanism to change the "current AS" and "current Area" as described + above. + 3.5. Exclude Route Object (XRO) The Exclude Route Object (XRO) [RFC5521] is an optional object used to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes or resources from the whole path. 3.5.1. Subobjects Some subobjects to be used in XRO as defined in [RFC3209], [RFC3477], [RFC4874], and [RFC5520], but new subobjects related to Domain- @@ -652,25 +660,32 @@ All other fields are consistent with the definition in Section 3.4. All the processing rules are as per [RFC5521]. Note that, if a PCE receives an XRO in a PCReq message that contains subobjects defined in this document, that it does not recognize, it will respond according to the rules for a malformed object as per [RFC5440]. + IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS. In case + of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different + AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route + Subobject (EXRS) in the IRO to specify the AS in which the IGP area + is to be excluded. Further policy may be applied to prune/ignore + Area subobjects in XRO after "current AS" change during path + computation. + 3.6. Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) - Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) [RFC5521] is used to - specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes between a specific pair - of nodes. + EXRS [RFC5521] is used to specify exclusion of certain abstract nodes + between a specific pair of nodes. The EXRS subobject can carry any of the subobjects defined for inclusion in the XRO, thus the new subobjects to support 4 byte AS and IGP (OSPF / ISIS) Area can also be used in the EXRS. The meanings of the fields of the new XRO subobjects are unchanged when the subobjects are included in an EXRS, except that scope of the exclusion is limited to the single hop between the previous and subsequent elements in the IRO. The EXRS subobject should be interpreted in the context of the @@ -763,21 +778,22 @@ | +--+ | | | | | | | | +--+ | | | | | | Area 1 | | Area 5 | ----------------- ------------------ Figure 1: Inter-Area Path Computation AS Number is 100. - This could be represented in the IRO as: + If the ingress is in Area 2, egress in Area 4 and transit through + Area 0. Some possible way a PCC can encode the IRO: +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Header | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +---------+ +---------+ +---------+ or @@ -830,21 +846,22 @@ \ / / A3----------D1---D2---D3---------C3 <----------> AS D * All AS have one area (area 0) Figure 2: Inter-AS Path Computation - This could be represented in the IRO as: + If the ingress is in AS A, egress in AS C and transit through AS B. + Some possible way a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Header | |AS B | |AS C | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or @@ -954,40 +971,42 @@ | | +--+ | | | | | | | | | +------------+ +----------------+ | | AS 100 | AS 200 | Figure 3: Inter-AS Path Computation - The Domain-Sequence for the LSP (A-B) can be carried in the IRO as - shown below: + For LSP (A-B), where ingress A is in (AS 100, Area 0), egress B in + (AS 200, Area 4) and transit through (AS 200, Area 0). Some possible + way a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Header | |AS 100 | |Area 0 | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 4 | | | | | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ - The Domain-Sequence for the LSP (A-C) can be carried in the IRO as - shown below: + For LSP (A-C), where ingress A is in (AS 100, Area 0), egress C in + (AS 200, Area 5) and transit through (AS 200, Area 0). Some possible + way a PCC can encode the IRO: +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ |IRO | |Sub | |Sub | |Sub | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Object | |Header | |AS 200 | |Area 0 | |Area 5 | | | | | | | | | +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ +-------+ or @@ -1040,26 +1059,60 @@ A PCE which can support adjacent domains can internally handle those domains in the Domain-Sequence without any impact on the other domains in the Domain-Sequence. 4.5. P2MP [RFC7334] describes an experimental inter-domain P2MP path computation mechanism where the path domain tree is described as a series of Domain-Sequences, an example is shown in the below figure: - D1-D3-D6, D1-D3-D5 and D1-D2-D4. - D1 + +----------------+ + | |Domain D1 + | R | + | | + | A | + | | + +-B------------C-+ / \ - D2 D3 - / / \ - D4 D5 D6 + / \ + / \ + Domain D2 / \ Domain D3 + +-------------D--+ +-----E----------+ + | | | | + | F | | | + | G | | H | + | | | | + | | | | + +-I--------------+ +-J------------K-+ + /\ / \ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + / \ / \ + / Domain D4 \ Domain D5 / Domain D6 \ + +-L-------------W+ +------P---------+ +-----------T----+ + | | | | | | + | | | Q | | U | + | M O | | S | | | + | | | | | V | + | N | | R | | | + +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ + + The domain tree can be represented as a series of domain-sequence - + + o Domian D1, Domian D3, Domian D6 + + o Domian D1, Domian D3, Domian D5 + + o Domian D1, Domian D2, Domian D4 The domain sequence handling described in this document could be applied to P2MP path domain tree. 4.6. Hierarchical PCE In case of H-PCE [RFC6805], the parent PCE can be requested to determine the Domain-Sequence and return it in the path computation reply, using the ERO. . For the example in section 4.6 of [RFC6805], the Domain-Sequence can possibly appear as: @@ -1107,69 +1160,100 @@ (XRO) or Explicit Exclusion Route Subobject (EXRS) in RSVP-TE. In any case subobject type defined in RSVP-TE are identical to the subobject type defined in the related documents in PCEP. 6. IANA Considerations 6.1. New Subobjects IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" - at http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml. Within this - registry IANA maintains two sub-registries: + at . Within this registry IANA + maintains two sub-registries: - o "IRO Subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ - pcep.xhtml#iro-subobject + o "IRO Subobjects": - o "XRO Subobjects": http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/ - pcep.xhtml#xro-subobject + o "XRO Subobjects": Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to make identical additions to these registries as follows: Subobject Type Reference TBD1 4 byte AS number [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] TBD2 OSPF Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] TBD3 IS-IS Area ID [This I.D.][DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] + Further upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to add a + reference to this document to the new RSVP numbers that are + registered by [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ]. + 7. Security Considerations - This document specifies a standard representation of Domain-Sequence - and new subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios - as explained in other RFC and drafts. The new subobjects and Domain- - Sequence mechanisms defined in this document allow finer and more - specific control of the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such - control increases the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, - modified, or spoofed because it allows the attacker to exert control - over the path that the PCE will compute or to make the path - computation impossible. Therefore, the security techniques described - in [RFC5440] are considered more important. + The protocol extensions defined in this document do not substantially + change the nature of PCEP. Therefore, the security considerations + set out in [RFC5440] apply unchanged. Note that further security + considerations for the use of PCEP over TCP are presented in + [RFC6952]. + + This document specifies a representation of Domain-Sequence and new + subobjects, which could be used in inter-domain PCE scenarios as + explained in [RFC5152], [RFC5441], [RFC6805], [RFC7334] etc. The + security considerations set out in each of these mechanisms remain + unchanged by the new subobjects and Domain-Sequence representation in + this document. + + But the new subobjects do allow finer and more specific control of + the path computed by a cooperating PCE(s). Such control increases + the risk if a PCEP message is intercepted, modified, or spoofed + because it allows the attacker to exert control over the path that + the PCE will compute or to make the path computation impossible. + Consequently, it is important that implementations conform to the + relevant security requirements of [RFC5440]. These mechanisms + include: + + o Securing the PCEP session messages using TCP security techniques + (Section 10.2 of [RFC5440]). PCEP implementations SHOULD also + consider the additional security provided by the TCP + Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or [PCEPS]. + + o Authenticating the PCEP messages to ensure the message is intact + and sent from an authorized node (Section 10.3 of [RFC5440]). + + o PCEP operates over TCP, so it is also important to secure the PCE + and PCC against TCP denial-of-service attacks. Section 10.7.1 of + [RFC5440] outlines a number of mechanisms for minimizing the risk + of TCP-based denial-of-service attacks against PCEs and PCCs. + + o In inter-AS scenarios, attacks may be particularly significant + with commercial as well as service-level implications. Note, however, that the Domain-Sequence mechanisms also provide the operator with the ability to route around vulnerable parts of the network and may be used to increase overall network security. 8. Manageability Considerations 8.1. Control of Function and Policy The exact behaviour with regards to desired inclusion and exclusion of domains MUST be available for examination by an operator and MAY be configurable. Manual configurations is needed to identify which PCEP peers understand the new domain subobjects defined in this document. 8.2. Information and Data Models A MIB module for management of the PCEP is being specified in a separate document [RFC7420]. This document does not imply any new - extention to the current MIB module. + extension to the current MIB module. 8.3. 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 [RFC5440]. 8.4. Verify Correct Operations Mechanisms defined in this document do not imply any new operation @@ -1207,20 +1291,29 @@ 9. Acknowledgments Authors would like to especially thank Adrian Farrel for his detailed reviews as well as providing text to be included in the document. Further, we would like to thank Pradeep Shastry, Suresh Babu, Quintin Zhao, Fatai Zhang, Daniel King, Oscar Gonzalez, Chen Huaimo, Venugopal Reddy, Reeja Paul, Sandeep Boina, Avantika Sergio Belotti and Jonathan Hardwick for their useful comments and suggestions. + Thanks to Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this document. + + Thanks to Joel Halpern for Gen-ART Review. + + Thanks to Klaas Wierenga for SecDir Review. + + Thanks to Spencer Dawkins and Barry Leiba for comments during the + IESG Review. + 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, . [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., @@ -1270,21 +1363,21 @@ [IRO-UPDATE] Dhody, D., "Update to Include Route Object (IRO) specification in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP. (draft-ietf-pce-iro-update-02)", May 2015. [DOMAIN-SUBOBJ] Dhody, D., Palle, U., Kondreddy, V., and R. Casellas, "Domain Subobjects for Resource ReserVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE). (draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te- - domain-subobjects-02)", July 2015. + domain-subobjects-04)", November 2015. 10.2. Informative References [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and J. Ash, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006, . [RFC4726] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J., and A. Ayyangar, "A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic @@ -1310,47 +1403,62 @@ "Preserving Topology Confidentiality in Inter-Domain Path Computation Using a Path-Key-Based Mechanism", RFC 5520, DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, . [RFC5886] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Le Roux, JL., and Y. Ikejiri, "A Set of Monitoring Tools for Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 5886, DOI 10.17487/RFC5886, June 2010, . + [RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP + Authentication Option", RFC 5925, DOI 10.17487/RFC5925, + June 2010, . + [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, . + [RFC6952] Jethanandani, M., Patel, K., and L. Zheng, "Analysis of + BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the Keying + and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) Design + Guide", RFC 6952, DOI 10.17487/RFC6952, May 2013, + . + [RFC7334] Zhao, Q., Dhody, D., King, D., Ali, Z., and R. Casellas, "PCE-Based Computation Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 7334, DOI 10.17487/RFC7334, August 2014, . [RFC7420] Koushik, A., Stephan, E., Zhao, Q., King, D., and J. Hardwick, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Management Information Base (MIB) Module", RFC 7420, DOI 10.17487/RFC7420, December 2014, . + [PCEPS] Lopez, D., Dios, O., Wu, W., and D. Dhody, "Secure + Transport for PCEP", draft-ietf-pce-pceps-05 (work in + progress), November 2015. + Authors' Addresses Dhruv Dhody Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 India EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com + Udayasree Palle Huawei Technologies Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield Bangalore, Karnataka 560037 India EMail: udayasree.palle@huawei.com Ramon Casellas CTTC