<?xml version='1.0' encoding='US-ASCII'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-chen-pce-sr-mpls-sid-verification-10"
     ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
 <title abbrev="SID Verification for SR-MPLS">PCEP Extensions for sid verification for SR-MPLS</title>

       <author fullname="Ran Chen" initials="R." surname="Chen">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city>Nanjing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>chen.ran@zte.com.cn</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
       <author fullname="Samuel Sidor" initials="S." surname="Sidor">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city></city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country></country>
        </postal>
        <email>ssidor@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
       <author fullname="Chun Zhu" initials="C." surname="Zhu">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city>Nanjing</city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country>China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>zhu.chun1@zte.com.cn</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
    <author fullname="Alex Tokar" initials="A." surname="Tokar">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city></city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country></country>
        </postal>
        <email>atokar@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
    
        <author fullname="Mike Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street/>
          <!-- Reorder these if your country does things differently -->

         <city></city>
          <region/>
          <code/>
          <country></country>
        </postal>
        <email>mkoldych@cisco.com</email>
        <!-- uri and facsimile elements may also be added -->
     </address>
    </author>
        
    <date year="2025"/>
    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
        in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
     in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
     necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
     purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
     specify just the year. -->

   <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

   <area>Routing</area>
    <workgroup>PCE</workgroup>
    <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
        IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
     If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
        which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

   <keyword>Internet Draft</keyword>
    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
        files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
        output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
        keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

   <abstract>
      <t>This document defines a new flag for indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
    <t><xref target="RFC9256"></xref> describes the "SID verification" bit usage. SID verification is performed when the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the controller via the signaling protocol used. Implementations MAY provide a local configuration option to enable verification on a global or per policy or per candidate path basis.</t>
    <t><xref target="RFC8664"></xref> 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 defines a new flag for indicating the headend is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.</t>
    <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> <xref target="RFC8174" format="default"></xref> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section> 
    </section>
      <section title="SID verification flag(V-Flag)">
	  <section title="V-Flag in SR-ERO Subobject">
      <t>Section 4.3.1 in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing <xref target="RFC8664"></xref> describes a new ERO subobject referred to as the "SR-ERO subobject" to carry a SID and/or NAI information. A new flag is proposed in this doucument in the SR-ERO Subobject <xref target="RFC8664"></xref> for indicating the pcc is explicitly requested to verify SID(s) by the PCE.</t>
      <t>V(1bit TBD): When the V-Flag is set then PCC MUST consider the "SID verification".</t>
        </section>
		
		<section title="V-Flag in SR-RRO Subobject">
        <t>The format of the SR-RRO subobject is the same as that of the SR-ERO subobject, but without the L-Flag, per <xref target="RFC8664"></xref>.</t>
       <t>The V flag has no meaning in the SR-RRO and is ignored on receipt at the PCE.</t>
        </section>
		<section title="SID verification Processing">
        <t>On receiving an SR-ERO with the V-flag is set, a PCC MUST verify SID(s) as described in Section 5.1 in <xref target="RFC9256"></xref>.</t>
        <t>If a PCC "Verification fails" for a SID, it MUST report this error by including the LSP-ERROR-CODE TLV with LSP error-value "SID Verification fails" in the LSP object in the PCRpt message to the PCE.</t>
        </section>
        </section>
   <section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>We would like to thank Dhruv Dhody and John Scudder for their useful comments and suggestions.</t>
    </section>
    <!-- Possibly a '  ' section ... -->
    <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
	<section title="SR-ERO Subobject">
     <t>This document defines a new bit value in the sub-registry "SR-ERO Flag Field" in the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" registry.</t>
        <artwork align="center" type="" alt="">
    <![CDATA[       
    Bit     Name                         Reference
    ---     -----------------------      -------------
    TBD     SID verification(V)          This document     
            ]]></artwork>
      </section>      
    </section>  
    
    <section title="Security Considerations">
      <t>The security considerations described in <xref target="RFC5440"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8231"></xref>, <xref target="RFC8281"></xref>, and <xref target="RFC8664"></xref> are applicable to this specification. No additional security measures are required.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

 <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

   <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
    1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
    2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
       (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

    Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
    If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
    directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
    with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
    filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->
 <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.5440"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8231"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8281"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8174"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.8664"?>
      <?rfc include="reference.RFC.9256"?>
    </references>
       
    <!-- Change Log

v00 2006-03-15  EBD   Initial version

v01 2006-04-03  EBD   Moved PI location back to position 1 -
                     v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07  AH    removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
                     other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09  EBD   Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
                     Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
                     figure indent control.  Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
                     Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH     Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
                     added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD    Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative 
                     images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems).

v06 2010-04-01 TT     Changed ipr attribute values to latest ones. Changed date to
                     year only, to be consistent with the comments. Updated the 
                     IANA guidelines reference from the I-D to the finished RFC.
v07 2020-01-21 HL    Converted the template to use XML schema version 3.
    -->
 </back>
</rfc>
