Skip to main content

Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9504.
Expired & archived
Authors Xian Zhang , Young Lee , Fatai Zhang , Ramon Casellas , Oscar Gonzalez de Dios , Zafar Ali
Last updated 2014-06-07 (Latest revision 2013-12-04)
RFC stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd (None)
IESG IESG state Became RFC 9504 (Proposed Standard)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                        Xian Zhang 
Internet-Draft                                                Young Lee 
Intended status: Standards Track                            Fatai Zhang 
                                                         Ramon Casellas 
                                                 Oscar Gonzalez de Dios 
                                                         Telefonica I+D 
                                                              Zafar Ali 
                                                          Cisco Systems 
Expires: June 5, 2014                                  December 4, 2013 

   Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE 
                   Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks 

Status of this Memo 

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with   
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering   
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that   
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-   

   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 

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 5, 2014. 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 1] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 



   The Path Computation Element (PCE) facilitates Traffic Engineering 
   (TE) based path calculation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or 
   multi-layer networks. [Stateful-PCE] provides the fundamental PCE 
   communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions needed to support stateful 
   PCE functions, without specifying the technology-specific extensions. 
   This memo provides extensions required for PCEP so as to enable the 
   usage of a stateful PCE capability in GMPLS-controlled networks.  

Conventions used in this document 

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. 

Table of Contents 

   Table of Contents .............................................. 2 
   1. Introduction ................................................ 3 
   2. PCEP Extensions ............................................. 3 
      2.1. Overview of Requirements................................ 3 
      2.2. Stateful PCE Capability Advertisement................... 4 
         2.2.1. PCE Capability Advertisement in Multi-layer Networks 4 
      2.3. LSP Delegation in GMPLS-controlled Networks............. 5 
      2.4. LSP Synchronization in GMPLS-controlled networks.........6 
      2.5. Modification of Existing PCEP Messages and Procedures....7 
         2.5.1. Use cases ......................................... 8 
         2.5.2. Modification for LSP Re-optimization ...............8 
         2.5.3. Modification for Route Exclusion ...................9 
      2.6. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined..........10 
   3. IANA Considerations ........................................ 10 
   4. Manageability Considerations................................ 10 
      4.1. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 10 
   5. Security Considerations..................................... 11 
   6. Acknowledgement ............................................ 11 
   7. References ................................................. 11 
      7.1. Normative References................................... 11 
      7.2. Informative References................................. 11 
   8. Contributors' Address....................................... 12 
   Authors' Addresses ............................................ 13 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 2] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

1. Introduction 

   [RFC 4655] presents the architecture of a Path Computation Element 
   (PCE)-based model for computing Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) 
   and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched 
   Paths (TE LSPs).  To perform such a constrained computation, a PCE 
   stores the network topology (i.e., TE links and nodes) and resource 
   information (i.e., TE attributes) in its TE Database (TED).  To 
   request path computation services to a PCE, [RFC 5440] defines the 
   PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) for interaction between a Path 
   Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs.  PCEP as 
   specified in [RFC 5440] mainly focuses on MPLS networks and the PCEP 
   extensions needed for GMPLS-controlled networks are provided in 

   Stateful PCEs are shown to be helpful in many application scenarios, 
   in both MPLS and GMPLS networks, as illustrated in [Stateful-APP].  
   In order for these applications to able to exploit the capability of 
   stateful PCEs, extensions to the PCE communication protocol (i.e., 
   PCEP) are required.  

   [Stateful-PCE] provides the fundamental extensions needed for 
   stateful PCE to support general functionality, but leaves out the 
   specification for technology-specific objects/TLVs.  Complementarily, 
   this document focuses on the extensions that are necessary in order 
   for the deployment of stateful PCEs in GMPLS-controlled networks.  

2. PCEP Extensions  

2.1. Overview of Requirements 

   This section notes the main functional requirements for PCEP 
   extensions to support stateful PCE for use in GMPLS-controlled 
   networks, based on the description in [Stateful-APP].  Many 
   requirements are common across a variety of network types (e.g., 
   MPLS-TE networks and GMPLS networks) and the protocol extensions to 
   meet the requirements are already described in [Stateful-PCE].  This 
   document does not repeat the description of those protocol 
   extensions. Other requirements that are also common across a variety 
   of network types do not currently have protocol extensions defined 
   in [Stateful-PCE].  In these cases, this document presents protocol 
   extensions for discussion by the PCE working group and potential 
   inclusion in [Stateful-PCE].  In addition, this document presents 
   protocol extensions for a set of requirements which are specific to 
   the use of a stateful PCE in a GMPLS-controlled network. 

   The basic requirements are as follows: 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 3] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   o  Advertisement of the stateful PCE capability.  This generic 
      requirement is covered in Section 7.1.1 of [Stateful-PCE].  
      Section 2.2 of this document discusses other potential extensions 
      for this functionality. 

   o  LSP delegation is already covered in Section 5.5 of [Stateful-PCE].  
      Section 2.3 of this document provides extension for its 
      application in GMPLS-controlled networks.  Moreover, further   
      discussion of some generic details that may need additional 
      consideration is provided. 

   o  LSP state synchronization. This is a generic requirement already 
      covered in Section 5.4 of [Stateful-PCE].  However, there are 
      further extensions required specifically for GMPLS-controlled 
      networks and discussed in Section 2.4.  Reference to LSPs by 
      identifiers is discussed in Section 7.2 of [Stateful-PCE].  This 
      feature can be applied to reduce the data carried in PCEP messages.  
      Use cases and additional Error Codes are necessary, as described 
      in Section 2.5 and 2.6. 

2.2. Stateful PCE Capability Advertisement 

   Whether a PCE has stateful capability or not can be advertised 
   during the PCEP session establishment process. It can also be 
   advertised through routing protocols as described in [RFC5088]. In 
   either case, the following additional aspects should also be 

 2.2.1. PCE Capability Advertisement in Multi-layer Networks 

   In multi-layer network scenarios, such as an IP-over-optical network, 
   if there are dedicated PCEs responsible for each layer, then the 
   PCCs should be informed of which PCEs they should synchronize their 
   LSP states with, as well as send path computation requests to.  The 
   Layer-Cap TLV defined in [INTER-LAYER] can be used to indicate which 
   layer a PCE is in charge of. (Editor's note: this change is 
   currently not included in the current version of the [INTER-LAYER] 
   draft. It is expected that it will be included in its next version.) 
   This TLV is optional and MAY be carried in the OPEN object.  It is 
   RECOMMMENDED that a PCC synchronizes its LSP states with the same 
   PCEs that it can use for path computation in a multi-layer network. 
   In a single layer, this TLV MAY not be used.  However, if the PCE 
   capability discovery depends on IGP and if an IGP instance spans 
   across multiple layers, this TLV is still needed.  

   Alternatively, the extension to current OSPF PCED TLV is needed.  A 
   new domain-type denoting the layer information can be defined: 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 4] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   domain-type: T.B.D. 

   When it is carried in PCE-DOMAIN sub-TLV, it denotes the layer for 
   which a PCE is responsible for path computation as well as LSP state 
   synchronization.  When carried in the PCE-NEIG-DOMAIN sub-TLV, it 
   denotes its adjacent layers for which a PCE can compute paths and 
   synchronize the LSP states.  The DOMAIN-ID information can be 
   represented using the following format, to denote the layer 

    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      
   | LSP Enc. Type | Switching Type|             Reserved          |     
2.3. LSP Delegation in GMPLS-controlled Networks  

   To enable the PCE to control an LSP, the PCUpd message is defined in 
   [Stateful-PCE].  However, the specification of technology specific 
   extensions is not covered.  The following defines the <path> 
   descriptor, present in the PCUpd message, that should be used in 
   GMPLS-controlled networks: 



         <attribute-list> ::= [<LSPA>] 




         <metric-list>::= <METRIC>[<metric-list>] 

   As explained in [stateful-APP], LSP parameter update controlled by a 
   stateful PCE in a multi-domain network is complex and requires well-
   defined operational procedures as well as protocol design. 

   [TBD: protocol extensions] 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 5] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

2.4. LSP Synchronization in GMPLS-controlled networks 

   For LSP state synchronization of stateful PCEs in GMPLS networks, 
   the LSP attributes, such as its bandwidth, associated route as well 
   as protection information etc, should be updated by PCCs to PCE LSP 
   database (LSP-DB). Note the LSP state synchronization described in 
   this document denotes both the bulk LSP report at the initialization 
   phase as well as the LSP state report afterwards described in 

   As per [Stateful-PCE], it does not cover technology-specific 
   specification for state synchronization. Therefore, extensions of 
   PCEP for stateful PCE usage in GMPLS networks are required. For LSP 
   state synchronization, the objects/TLVs that should be used for 
   stateful PCE in GMPLS networks are defined in [PCEP-GMPLS] and are 
   briefly summarized as below:  




   o Use of IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC. [Stateful-PCE] section 7.2.2 only 
   considers  RSVP ERROR_SPEC TLVs. GMPLS extends this to also support 
   IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC, for example, to report about failed unnumbered 

   o Extended objects to support the inclusion of the label and 
   unnumbered links.  

   Per [Stateful-PCE], the PCRpt message is defined for LSP state 
   synchronization purposes. PCRpt is used by a PCC to report one or 
   more of its LSPs to a stateful PCE. However, the <path> descriptor 
   is technology-specific and left undefined.   

   For LSP state synchronization in GMPLS-controlled networks, the 
   encoding of the <path> descriptor is defined as follows: 



         <attribute-list> ::= [<LSPA>] 


Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 6] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 




         <metric-list>::= <METRIC>[<metric-list>] 

   The objects included in the <path> descriptor can be found in 
   [RFC5440], [PCE-GMPLS] and [RFC5521]. 

   For all the objects presented in this section, the P and I bit MUST 
   be set to 0 since they are only used by a PCC to report its LSP 

   In GMPLS-controlled networks, the <ERO> object may include a list of 
   the label sub-object for SDH/SONET, OTN and DWDM networks. It may 
   also include a list of unnumbered interface IDs to denote the 
   allocated resource. The <RRO>, <IRO> and <XRO> objects MAY include 
   unnumbered interface IDs and labels for networks such as OTN and WDM 

   If the LSP being reported is a protecting LSP, the <PROTECTION-
   ATTRIBUTE> TLV MUST be included in the <LSPA> object to denote its 
   attributes and restrictions. Moreover, if the status of the 
   protecting LSP changes from non-operational to operational, this 
   should be synchronized to the stateful PCE. For example, in 1:1 
   protection, the combination of S=0, P=1 and O=0 denotes the 
   protecting path is set up already but not used for carrying traffic. 
   Upon the working path failure, the operational status of the 
   aforementioned protecting LSP changes to in-use (i.e., O=1). This 
   information should be synchronized with a stateful PCE through a 
   PCRpt message. 

   The O bit in the <GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH> object has no meaning for 
   LSP state synchronization and MUST be set to 0. Furthermore, this 
   object MAY appear twice, one with R set to 1 and the other with R 
   set to 0. This is to denote the asymmetric bandwidth property of the 
   updated bi-directional LSP. 


2.5.  Modification of Existing PCEP Messages and Procedures  

   One of the advantages mentioned in [Stateful-APP] is that the 
   stateful nature of a PCE simplifies the information conveyed in PCEP 
   messages, notably between PCC and PCE, since it is possible to refer 
   to PCE managed state for active LSPs. To be more specific, with a 
Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 7] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   stateful PCE, it is possible to refer to a LSP with a unique 
   identifier in the scope of the PCC-PCEP session and thus use such 
   identifier to refer to that LSP.  

 2.5.1. Use cases 

   Use Case 1: Assuming a stateful PCE's LSP-DB is up-to-date, a PCC 
   (e.g. NMS) requesting for a re-optimization of one or several LSPs 
   can send the request with "R" bit set and only provides the relevant 
   LSP unique identifiers. 

   Upon receiving the PCReq message, PCE should be able to correlate 
   with one or multiple LSPs with their detailed state information and 
   carry out optimization accordingly.  

   The handling of RP object specified in [RFC5440] is stated as 

   "The absence of an RRO in the PCReq message for a non-zero-bandwidth 
   TE LSP (when the R bit of the RP object is set) MUST trigger the 
   sending of a PCErr message with Error-Type="Required Object Missing" 
   and Error-value="RRO Object missing for re-optimization." 

   If a PCE has stateful capabilities, and such capabilities have been 
   negotiated and advertised, specific rules given in [RFC5440] may 
   need to be relaxed. In particular, the re-optimization case: if the 
   re-optimization request refers to a given LSP state, and the RRO 
   information is available, the PCE can proceed. 

   Use Case 2: in order to set up a LSP which has a constraint that its 
   route should not use resources used by one or more existing LSPs, a 
   PCC can send a PCReq with the identifiers of these LSPs. A stateful 
   PCE should be able to find the corresponding route and resource 
   information so as to meet the constraints set by the requesting PCC. 
   Hence, the LSP identifier TLV defined in [Stateful-PCE] can be used 
   in XRO object for this purpose. Note that if the PCC is a node in 
   the network, the constraint LSP ID information will be confined to 
   the LSPs initiated by itself. 

 2.5.2. Modification for LSP Re-optimization 

   For re-optimization, upon receiving a path computation request and 
   the "R" bit is set, the stateful PCE SHOULD still perform the re-
   optimization in the following two cases: 

   Case 1: the existing bandwidth and route information of the to-be-
   optimized LSP is provided in the path computation request. This 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 8] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   information should be provided via <BANDWIDTH>, <GENERARLIZED-
   BANDWIDTH>, <ERO> objects. 

   Case 2: the existing bandwidth and route information can be found 
   locally in its LSP-DB. In this case, the PCRep and PCReq messages 
   need to be modified to carry LSP identifiers. The stateful PCE can 
   find this information using the per-node LSP ID together with the 
   PCC's address. 

   If no LSP state information is available to carry out re-
   optimization, the stateful PCE should report the error "LSP state 
   information unavailable for the LSP re-optimization" (Error Type = 
   T.B.D., Error value= T.B.D.). 

 2.5.3. Modification for Route Exclusion 

   A LSP identifier sub-object is defined and its format as follows: 

       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 
     |L|    Type (T.B.D.)    |     Length    |      Reserved         | 
     |        PLSP-ID                          |        Flag         |           
     |                                                               | 
    //                         Optional TLVs                         // 
       L bit:  
         The L bit SHOULD NOT be set, so that the subobject represents 
   a strict hop in the explicit route. 
        Subobject Type for a per-node LSP identifier.  
        The Length contains the total length of the subobject in bytes, 
   including the Type and Length fields.  
         This is the identifier given to a LSP and it is unique on a 
   node basis. It is defined in [Stateful-PCE]. 
         This field is defined in [Stateful-PCE]. It is not used in 
   this sub-object and should be ignored upon receipt. 
Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                   [Page 9] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

     Optional TLVs: 
         Additional TLVs can be defined in the future to provide 
   further information to identify a LSP. In this document, no TLVs are 
   One or multiple of these sub-objects can be present in the XRO 
   object. When a stateful PCE receives a path computation request 
   carrying this sub-object, it should find relevant information of 
   these LSPs and preclude the resource during the path computation 
   process. If a stateful PCE cannot recognize one or more of the 
   received LSP identifiers, it should reply PCErr saying "the LSP 
   state information for route exclusion purpose cannot be found" 
   (Error-type = T.B.D., Error-value= T.B.D.). Optionally, it may 
   provide with the unrecognized identifier information to the 
   requesting PCC. 

2.6. Additional Error Type and Error Values Defined 

   Error Type Meaning 

   21(TBD)    LSP state information missing  

               Error-value 1: LSP state information unavailable for the 
               LSP re-optimization 

               Error-value 2: the LSP state information for route 
               exclusion purpose cannot be found 

3.  IANA Considerations 

   IANA is requested to allocate new Types for the TLV/Object defined 
   in this document.T.B.D. 

4. Manageability Considerations 

   The description and functionality specifications presented related 
   to stateful PCEs should also comply with the manageability 
   specifications covered in Section 8 of [RFC4655]. Furthermore, a 
   further list of manageability issues presented in [Stateful-PCE] 
   should also be considered. 

   Additional considerations are presented in the next sections. 

4.1. Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components 

   When the detailed route information is included for LSP state 
   synchronization (either at the initial stage or during LSP state 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 10] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   report process), this require the ingress node of an LSP carry the 
   RRO object in order to enable the collection of such information.  

5. Security Considerations 

   The security issues presented in [RFC5440] and [Stateful-PCE] apply 
   to this document.  

6. Acknowledgement 

   We would like to thank Adrian Farrel and Cyril Margaria for the 
   useful comments and discussions. 

7. References 

7.1. Normative References 

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate 
             requirements levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.  

   [RFC4655] Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and Ash, J., "A Path 
             Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655, 
             August 2006. 

   [RFC5440] Vasseur, J.-P., and Le Roux, JL., "Path Computation 
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 
             March 2009. 

   [RFC5088] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, J.-P., Ikejiri, Y., Zhang, R., 
             "OSPF Protocol Extensions for Path Computation Element 
             (PCE) Discovery", RFC 5088, January 2008. 

   [INTER-LAYER] Oki, E., Takeda, Tomonori, Le Roux, JL., Farrel, A., 
             Zhang, F., "Extensions to the Path Computation Element 
             communication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and 
             GMPLS Traffic Engineering", draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext, 
             work in progress. 

7.2. Informative References 

   [Stateful-APP] Zhang, X., Minei, I., et al  "Applicability of 
             Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE) ", draft-ietf-pce-
             stateful-pce-app, , work in progress. 

   [Stateful-PCE]Crabbe, E., Medved, J., Varga, R., Minei, I., "PCEP 
             Extensions for Stateful PCE", draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce, 
             work in progress. 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 11] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   [PCE-IA-WSON] Lee, Y., Bernstein G., Takeda, T., Tsuritani, T., 
             "PCEP Extensions for WSON Impairments", draft-lee-pce-
             wson-impairments, work in progress. 

   [PCEP-GMPLS] Margaria, C., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Zhang, F., "PCEP 
             extensions for GMPLS", draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-
             extensions, work in progress. 

8. Contributors' Address 

   Dhruv Dhody 
   Huawei Technology 
   Leela Palace 
   Bangalore, Karnataka 560008 

   Yi Lin 
   Huawei Technologies 
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 
   Bantian, Longgang District 
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 
   Phone: +86-755-28972914 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 12] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

Authors' Addresses 

   Xian Zhang 
   Huawei Technologies 
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 
   Bantian, Longgang District 
   Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China 
   Phone: +86-755-28972645 
   Young Lee 
   1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 
   Plano, TX  75075 
   Phone: +1 972 509 5599 x2240 
   Fax:   +1 469 229 5397 
   Fatai Zhang 
   F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base 
   Bantian, Longgang District 
   P.R. China 
   Phone: +86-755-28972912 
   Ramon Casellas 
   Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss n7 
   Castelldefels, Barcelona 08860 
   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios  
   Telefonica Investigacion y Desarrollo 
   Emilio Vargas 6 
   Madrid,   28045 
Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 13] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   Phone: +34 913374013 
   Zafar Ali 
   Cisco Systems 
Intellectual Property 

   The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of   
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be   
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology   
   described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license   
   under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it   
   represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any   
   such rights. 

   Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF   
   Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or   
   the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or   
   permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or   
   users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line 
   IPR   repository at 

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   
   any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please   
   address the information to the IETF at 

   The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or   
   under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are   
   published by third parties, including those that are translated into   
   other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions   
   of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions   
   is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions 
   of   these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, 
   including   those that are translated into other languages, should 
   not be   considered to be definitive versions of these Legal 

   For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards   
   Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of   
   the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the   
   provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,   

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 14] 

draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-00.txt             December 2013 

   conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the   
   rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect 
   and   shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such   
   Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. 


Disclaimer of Validity 
   All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are 
   provided   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION 

Full Copyright Statement 
   Copyright (c) 2013 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 
   ( in effect on the date of 
   publication of this document. Please review these documents 
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 
   respect 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. 

Zhang et al               Expires June 2014                  [Page 15]