YANG Data Model for requesting Path Computation
draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-16

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (teas WG)
Authors Italo Busi  , Sergio Belotti  , Victor Lopez  , Anurag Sharma  , Yan Shi 
Last updated 2021-09-06
Replaces draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf htmlized bibtex
Yang Validation 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Reviews
Additional Resources
- Yang catalog entry for ietf-te-path-computation@2019-03-11.yang
- Yang impact analysis for draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation
- Mailing list discussion
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
TEAS Working Group                                     Italo Busi (Ed.)
Internet Draft                                                   Huawei
Intended status: Standard Track                    Sergio Belotti (Ed.)
Expires: March 2022                                               Nokia
                                                           Victor Lopez
                                                                  Nokia
                                                          Anurag Sharma
                                                                 Google
                                                                Yan Shi
                                                           China Unicom

                                                      September 6, 2021

              YANG Data Model for requesting Path Computation
                 draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-16

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted 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-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 6, 2022.

Busi, Belotti, al.      Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 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
   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.

Abstract

   There are scenarios, typically in a hierarchical Software-Defined
   Networking (SDN) context, where the topology information provided by
   a Traffic Engineering (TE) network provider may be insufficient for
   its client to perform end-to-end path computation. In these cases the
   client would need to request the provider to calculate some (partial)
   feasible paths.

   This document defines a YANG data model for a Remote Procedure Call
   (RPC) to request path computation. This model complements the
   solution, defined in RFC YYYY, to configure a TE tunnel path in
   "compute-only" mode.

   [RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFC YYYY with the RFC number of
   draft-ietf-teas-yang-te once it has been published.

   Moreover this document describes some use cases where a path
   computation request, via YANG-based protocols (e.g., NETCONF or
   RESTCONF), can be needed.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction...................................................3
      1.1. Terminology...............................................5
      1.2. Tree Diagram..............................................5
      1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names...............................6
   2. Use Cases......................................................6

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

      2.1. Packet/Optical Integration................................6
      2.2. Multi-domain TE networks.................................11
      2.3. Data Center Interconnections.............................13
      2.4. Backward Recursive Path Computation scenario.............15
      2.5. Hierarchical PCE scenario................................16
   3. Motivations...................................................19
      3.1. Motivation for a YANG Model..............................19
         3.1.1. Benefits of common data models......................19
         3.1.2. Benefits of a single interface......................20
         3.1.3. Extensibility.......................................21
      3.2. Interactions with TE topology............................21
         3.2.1. TE topology aggregation.............................22
         3.2.2. TE topology abstraction.............................25
         3.2.3. Complementary use of TE topology and path
                computation.........................................27
      3.3. Path Computation RPC.....................................30
         3.3.1. Temporary reporting of the computed path state......32
   4. Path computation and optimization for multiple paths..........34
   5. YANG data model for requesting Path Computation...............35
      5.1. Synchronization of multiple path computation requests....35
      5.2. Returned metric values...................................38
      5.3. Multiple Paths Requests for the same TE tunnel...........39
         5.3.1. Tunnel attributes specified by value................41
         5.3.2. Tunnel attributes specified by reference............42
      5.4. Multi-Layer Path Computation.............................44
   6. YANG data model for TE path computation.......................45
      6.1. Tree diagram.............................................45
      6.2. YANG module..............................................59
   7. Security Considerations.......................................84
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................85
   9. References....................................................85
      9.1. Normative References.....................................85
      9.2. Informative References...................................87
   Appendix A.    Examples of dimensioning the "detailed
                  connectivity matrix"..............................89
   Acknowledgments..................................................95
   Contributors.....................................................95
   Authors' Addresses...............................................96

1. Introduction

   There are scenarios, typically in a hierarchical Software-Defined
   Networking (SDN) context, where the topology information provided by
   a Traffic Engineering (TE) network provider may be insufficient for
   its client to perform end-to-end path computation. In these cases the

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   client would need to request the provider to calculate some (partial)
   feasible paths, complementing his topology knowledge, to make his
   end-to-end path computation feasible.

   This type of scenarios can be applied to different interfaces in
   different reference architectures:

   o  Application-Based Network Operations (ABNO) control interface
      [RFC7491], in which an Application Service Coordinator can request
      ABNO controller to take in charge path calculation (see Figure 1
      in [RFC7491]).

   o  Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) [RFC8453], where a
      controller hierarchy is defined, the need for path computation
      arises on the interface between Customer Network Controller (CNC)
      and Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC), called CNC-MDSC
      Interface (CMI), and on the interface between MSDC and
      Provisioning Network Controller (PNC), called MDSC-PNC Interface
      (MPI). [RFC8454] describes an information model for the Path
      Computation request.

   Multiple protocol solutions can be used for communication between
   different controller hierarchical levels. This document assumes that
   the controllers are communicating using YANG-based protocols (e.g.,
   NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF [RFC8040]).

   Path Computation Elements (PCEs), controllers and orchestrators
   perform their operations based on Traffic Engineering Databases
   (TED). Such TEDs can be described, in a technology agnostic way, with
   the YANG data model for TE Topologies [RFC8795]. Furthermore, the
   technology specific details of the TED are modeled in the augmented
   TE topology models, e.g. [OTN-TOPO] for Optical Transport Network
   (OTN) Optical Data Unit (ODU) technologies.

   The availability of such topology models allows the provisioning of
   the TED using YANG-based protocols (e.g., NETCONF or RESTCONF).
   Furthermore, it enables a PCE/controller performing the necessary
   abstractions or modifications and offering this customized topology
   to another PCE/controller or high level orchestrator.

   The tunnels that can be provided over the networks described with the
   topology models can be also set-up, deleted and modified via YANG-
   based protocols (e.g., NETCONF or RESTCONF) using the TE tunnel YANG
   data model [TE-TUNNEL].

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   This document defines a YANG data model [RFC7950] for an RPC to
   request path computation, which complements the solution defined in
   [TE-TUNNEL], to configure a TE tunnel path in "compute-only" mode.

   The YANG data model definition does not make any assumption about
   whether that the client or the server implement a "PCE"
   functionality, as defined in [RFC4655], and the Path Computation
   Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) protocol, as defined in
   [RFC5440].

   Moreover, this document describes some use cases where a path
   computation request, via YANG-based protocols (e.g., NETCONF or
   RESTCONF), can be needed.

   The YANG data model defined in this document conforms to the Network
   Management Datastore Architecture [RFC8342].

1.1. Terminology

   TED: The traffic engineering database is a collection of all TE
   information about all TE nodes and TE links in a given network.

   PCE: A Path Computation Element (PCE) is an entity that is capable of
   computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and of
   applying computational constraints during the computation.  The PCE
   entity is an application that can be located within a network node or
   component, on an out-of-network server, etc.  For example, a PCE
   would be able to compute the path of a TE Label Switched Path (LSP)
   by operating on the TED and considering bandwidth and other
   constraints applicable to the TE LSP service request. [RFC4655].

   Domain: TE information is the data relating to nodes and TE links
   that is used in the process of selecting a TE path.  TE information
   is usually only available within a network.  We call such a zone of
   visibility of TE information a domain.  An example of a domain may be
   an IGP area or an Autonomous System. [RFC7926]

   The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in
   [RFC7950].

1.2. Tree Diagram

   Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
   [RFC8340].

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

1.3. Prefixes in Data Node Names

   In this document, names of data nodes and other data model objects
   are prefixed using the standard prefix associated with the
   corresponding YANG imported modules, as shown in Table 1.

      +---------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
      | Prefix        | YANG module              | Reference       |
      +---------------+--------------------------+-----------------+
      | inet          | ietf-inet-types          | [RFC6991]       |
      | te-types      | ietf-te-types            | [RFC8776]       |
      | te            | ietf-te                  | [TE-TUNNEL]     |
      | te-pc         | ietf-te-path-computation | this document   |
      +---------------+--------------------------+-----------------+

                Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules

2. Use Cases

   This section presents some use cases, where a client needs to request
   underlying SDN controllers for path computation.

   The use of the YANG data model defined in this document is not
   restricted to these use cases but can be used in any other use case
   when deemed useful.

   The presented uses cases have been grouped, depending on the
   different underlying topologies: a) Packet/Optical Integration; b)
   multi-domain Traffic Engineered (TE) Networks; and c) Data Center
   Interconnections. Use cases d) and e) respectively present how to
   apply this YANG data model for standard multi-domain PCE i.e.
   Backward Recursive Path Computation [RFC5441] and Hierarchical PCE
   [RFC6805].

2.1. Packet/Optical Integration

   In this use case, an optical domain is used to provide connectivity
   to some nodes of a packet domain (see Figure 1).

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                                +----------------+
                                |                |
                                | Packet/Optical |
                                |  Coordinator   |
                                |                |
                                +---+------+-----+
                                    |      |
                       +------------+      |
                       |                   +-----------+
                +------V-----+                         |
                |            |                  +------V-----+
                | Packet     |                  |            |
                | Domain     |                  | Optical    |
                | Controller |                  | Domain     |
                |            |                  | Controller |
                +------+-----+                  +-------+----+
                       |                                |
              .........V.........................       |
              :          packet domain          :       |
          +----+                               +----+   |
          | R1 |= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =| R2 |   |
          +-+--+                               +--+-+   |
            | :                                 : |     |
            | :................................ : |     |
            |                                     |     |
            |               +-----+               |     |
            |    ...........| Opt |...........    |     |
            |    :          |  C  |          :    |     |
            |    :         /+--+--+\         :    |     |
            |    :        /    |    \        :    |     |
            |    :       /     |     \       :    |     |
            |   +-----+ /   +--+--+   \ +-----+   |     |
            |   | Opt |/    | Opt |    \| Opt |   |     |
            +---|  A  |     |  D  |     |  B  |---+     |
                +-----+\    +--+--+    /+-----+         |
                 :      \      |      /      :          |
                 :       \     |     /       :          |
                 :        \ +--+--+  / optical<---------+
                 :         \| Opt |/  domain :
                 :..........|  E  |..........:
                            +-----+

                  Figure 1 - Packet/Optical Integration use case

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Figure 1 as well as Figure 2 below only show a partial view of the
   packet network connectivity, before additional packet connectivity is
   provided by the optical network.

   It is assumed that the Optical Domain Controller provides to the
   Packet/Optical Coordinator an abstracted view of the optical network.
   A possible abstraction could be to represent the whole optical
   network as one "virtual node" with "virtual ports" connected to the
   access links, as shown in Figure 2.

   It is also assumed that Packet Domain Controller can provide the
   Packet/Optical Coordinator the information it needs to set up
   connectivity between packet nodes through the optical network (e.g.,
   the access links).

   The path computation request helps the Packet/Optical Coordinator to
   know the real connections that can be provided by the optical
   network.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                       ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
                      ,  Packet/Optical Coordinator view          ,
                     ,                              +----+       , .
                    ,                               |    |      ,
                   ,                                | R2 |     ,   .
                  ,  +----+  +------------ +       /+----+    ,
                 ,   |    |  |             |/-----/ / /      ,     .
                ,    | R1 |--O VP1     VP4 O       / /      ,
               ,     |    |\ |             | /----/ /      ,       .
              ,      +----+ \|             |/      /      ,
             ,        /      O VP2     VP5 O      /      ,         .
            ,        /       |             |  +----+    ,
           ,        /        |             |  |    |   ,           .
          ,        /         O VP3     VP6 O--| R4 |  ,
         ,     +----+ /-----/|_____________|  +----+ ,             .
        ,      |    |/       +------------ +        ,
       ,       | R3 |                              ,               .
      ,        +----+                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
     ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                ,.
     . Packet Domain Controller view                +----+       ,
       only packet nodes and packet links           |    |      ,  .
     . with access links to the optical network     | R2 |     ,
                  ,  +----+                        /+----+    ,    .
     .           ,   |    |                 /-----/ / /      ,
                ,    | R1 |---                     / /      ,      .
     .         ,     +----+\                 /----/ /      ,
              ,        /    \               /      /      ,        .
     .       ,        /                           /      ,
            ,        /                        +----+    ,          .
     .     ,        /                         |    |   ,
          ,        /                       ---| R4 |  ,            .
     .   ,     +----+ /-----/                 +----+ ,
        ,      |    |/                              ,              .
     . ,       | R3 |                              ,
      ,        +----+                             ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
     .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                ,
       Optical Domain Controller view                            , .
     . only optical nodes,        +--+                          ,
       optical links and         /|OF|                         ,   .
     . access links from the  +--++--+             /          ,
       packet network         |OA|    \     /-----/ /        ,     .
     .          ,          ---+--+--\  +--+/       /        ,
               ,           \   |  \  \-|OE|-------/        ,       .
     .        ,             \  |   \ /-+--+               ,

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

             ,               \+--+  X    |               ,         .
     .      ,                 |OB|-/ \   |              ,
           ,                  +--+-\  \+--+            ,           .
     .    ,                  /   \  \--|OD|---        ,
         ,            /-----/     +--+ +--+          ,             .
     .  ,            /            |OC|/             ,
       ,                          +--+             ,               .
     .,                                           ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,                ,
     . Actual Physical View                         +----+       ,
                    ,             +--+              |    |      ,
     .             ,             /|OF|              | R2 |     ,
                  ,  +----+   +--++--+             /+----+    ,
     .           ,   |    |   |OA|    \     /-----/ / /      ,
                ,    | R1 |---+--+--\  +--+/       / /      ,
     .         ,     +----+\   |  \  \-|OE|-------/ /      ,
              ,        /    \  |   \ /-+--+        /      ,
     .       ,        /      \+--+  X    |        /      ,
            ,        /        |OB|-/ \   |    +----+    ,
     .     ,        /         +--+-\  \+--+   |    |   ,
          ,        /         /   \  \--|OD|---| R4 |  ,
     .   ,     +----+ /-----/     +--+ +--+   +----+ ,
        ,      |    |/            |OC|/             ,
     . ,       | R3 |             +--+             ,
      ,        +----+                             ,
     .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

               Figure 2 - Packet and Optical Topology Abstractions

   In this use case, the Packet/Optical Coordinator needs to set up an
   optimal underlying path for an IP link between R1 and R2.

   As depicted in Figure 2, the Packet/Optical Coordinator has only an
   "abstracted view" of the physical network, and it does not know the
   feasibility or the cost of the possible optical paths (e.g., VP1-VP4
   and VP2-VP5), which depend on the current status of the physical
   resources within the optical network and on vendor-specific optical
   attributes.

   The Packet/Optical Coordinator can request the underlying Optical
   Domain Controller to compute a set of potential optimal paths, taking
   into account optical constraints. Then, based on its own constraints,
   policy and knowledge (e.g. cost of the access links), it can choose

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   which one of these potential paths to use to set up the optimal end-
   to-end path crossing optical network.

                    ............................
                    :                          :
                    O VP1                  VP4 O
           cost=10 /:\                        /:\ cost=10
                  / : \----------------------/ : \
          +----+ /  :         cost=50          :  \ +----+
          |    |/   :                          :   \|    |
          | R1 |    :                          :    | R2 |
          |    |\   :                          :   /|    |
          +----+ \  :  /--------------------\  :  / +----+
                  \ : /       cost=55        \ : /
            cost=5 \:/                        \:/ cost=5
                    O VP2                  VP5 O
                    :                          :
                    :..........................:

              Figure 3 - Packet/Optical Integration path computation
                                       example

   For example, in Figure 3, the Packet/Optical Coordinator can request
   the Optical Domain Controller to compute the paths between VP1-VP4
   and VP2-VP5 and then decide to set up the optimal end-to-end path
   using the VP2-VP5 optical path even if this is not the optimal path
   from the optical domain perspective.

   Considering the dynamicity of the connectivity constraints of an
   optical domain, it is possible that a path computed by the Optical
   Domain Controller when requested by the Packet/Optical Coordinator is
   no longer valid/available when the Packet/Optical Coordinator
   requests it to be set up. This is further discussed in section 3.3.

2.2. Multi-domain TE networks

   In this use case there are two TE domains which are interconnected
   together by multiple inter-domains links.

   A possible example could be a multi-domain optical network.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                            +--------------+
                            | Multi-Domain |
                            | Controller   |
                            +---+------+---+
                                |      |
                   +------------+      |
                   |                   +-----------+
            +------V-----+                         |
            |            |                         |
            | TE Domain  |                  +------V-----+
            | Controller |                  |            |
            |      1     |                  | TE Domain  |
            +------+-----+                  | Controller |
                   |                        |      2     |
                   |                        +------+-----+
          .........V..........                     |
          :                  :                     |
         +-----+             :                     |
         |     |             :            .........V..........
         |  X  |             :            :                  :
         |     |          +-----+      +-----+                :
         +-----+          |     |      |     |               :
          :               |  C  |------|  E  |               :
      +-----+    +-----+ /|     |      |     |\ +-----+    +-----+
      |     |    |     |/ +-----+      +-----+ \|     |    |     |
      |  A  |----|  B  |     :            :     |  G  |----|  H  |
      |     |    |     |\    :            :    /|     |    |     |
      +-----+    +-----+ \+-----+      +-----+/ +-----+    +-----+
          :               |     |      |     |               :
          :               |  D  |------|  F  |               :
          :               |     |      |     |          +-----+
          :               +-----+      +-----+          |     |
          :                  :            :             |  Y  |
          :                  :            :             |     |
          :   TE domain 1    :            : TE domain 2 +-----+
          :..................:            :.................:

              Figure 4 -    Multi-domain multi-link interconnection

   In order to set up an end-to-end multi-domain TE path (e.g., between
   nodes A and H), the Multi-Domain Controller needs to know the
   feasibility or the cost of the possible TE paths within the two TE
   domains, which depend on the current status of the physical resources
   within each TE domain. This is more challenging in case of optical

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   networks because the optimal paths depend also on vendor-specific
   optical attributes (which may be different in the two domains if they
   are provided by different vendors).

   In order to set up a multi-domain TE path (e.g., between nodes A and
   H), the Multi-Domain Controller can request the TE Domain Controllers
   to compute a set of intra-domain optimal paths and take decisions
   based on the information received. For example:

   o  The Multi-Domain Controller asks TE Domain Controllers to provide
      set of paths between A-C, A-D, E-H and F-H

   o  TE Domain Controllers return a set of feasible paths with the
      associated costs: the path A-C is not part of this set (in optical
      networks, it is typical to have some paths not being feasible due
      to optical constraints that are known only by the Optical Domain
      Controller)

   o  The Multi-Domain Controller will select the path A-D-F-H since it
      is the only feasible multi-domain path and then request the TE
      Domain Controllers to set up the A-D and F-H intra-domain paths

   o  If there are multiple feasible paths, the Multi-Domain Controller
      can select the optimal path knowing the cost of the intra-domain
      paths (provided by the TE domain controllers) and the cost of the
      inter-domain links (known by the Multi-Domain Controller)

   This approach may have some scalability issues when the number of TE
   domains is quite big (e.g. 20).

   In this case, it would be worthwhile using the abstract TE topology
   information provided by the TE Domain Controllers to limit the number
   of potential optimal end-to-end paths and then request path
   computation from fewer TE Domain Controllers in order to decide what
   the optimal path within this limited set is.

   For more details, see section 3.2.3.

2.3. Data Center Interconnections

   In these use case, there is a TE domain which is used to provide
   connectivity between Data Centers which are connected with the TE
   domain using access links.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                        +--------------+
                        | Cloud Network|
                        | Orchestrator |
                        +--------------+
                          |  |  |  |
            +-------------+  |  |  +------------------------+
            |                |  +------------------+        |
            |       +--------V---+                 |        |
            |       |            |                 |        |
            |       | TE Network |                 |        |
     +------V-----+ | Controller |          +------V-----+  |
     | DC         | +------------+          | DC         |  |
     | Controller |     |                   | Controller |  |
     +------------+     |   +-----+         +------------+  |
          |         ....V...|     |........         |       |
          |         :       |  P  |       :         |       |
     .....V.....    :      /+-----+\      :    .....V.....  |
     :         :  +-----+ /    |    \ +-----+  :         :  |
     :  DC1 || :  |     |/     |     \|     |  :  DC2 || :  |
     :    ||||----| PE1 |      |      | PE2 |----   |||| :  |
     : _|||||| :  |     |\     |     /|     |  : _|||||| :  |
     :         :  +-----+ \ +-----+ / +-----+  :         :  |
     :.........:    :      \|     |/      :    :.........:  |
                    :.......| PE3 |.......:                 |
                            |     |                         |
                            +-----+               +---------V--+
                          .....|.....             | DC         |
                          :         :             | Controller |
                          :  DC3 || :             +------------+
                          :    |||| :                  |
                          : _|||||| <------------------+
                          :         :
                          :.........:

                 Figure 5 - Data Center Interconnection use case

   In this use case, there is the need to transfer data from Data Center
   1 (DC1) to either DC2 or DC3 (e.g. workload migration).

   The optimal decision depends both on the cost of the TE path (DC1-DC2
   or DC1-DC3) and of the Data Center resources within DC2 or DC3.

   The Cloud Network Orchestrator needs to make a decision for optimal
   connection based on TE network constraints and Data Center resources.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   It may not be able to make this decision because it has only an
   abstract view of the TE network (as in use case in 2.1).

   The Cloud Network Orchestrator can request to the TE Network
   Controller to compute the cost of the possible TE paths (e.g., DC1-
   DC2 and DC1-DC3) and to the DC Controller to provide the information
   it needs about the required Data Center resources within DC2 and DC3
   and then it can take the decision about the optimal solution based on
   this information and its policy.

2.4. Backward Recursive Path Computation scenario

   [RFC5441] has defined the Virtual Source Path Tree (VSPT) TLV within
   PCE Reply Object in order to compute inter-domain paths following a
   "Backward Recursive Path Computation" (BRPC) method. The main
   principle is to forward the PCE request message up to the destination
   domain. Then, each PCE involved in the computation will compute its
   part of the path and send it back to the requester through PCE
   Response message. The resulting computation is spread from
   destination PCE to source PCE. Each PCE is in charge of merging the
   path it received with the one it calculated. At the end, the source
   PCE merges its local part of the path with the received one to
   achieve the end-to-end path.

   Figure 6 below show a typical BRPC scenario where 3 PCEs cooperate to
   compute inter-domain paths.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                   +----------------+          +----------------+
                   |  Domain (B)    |          |  Domain (C)    |
                   |                |          |                |
                   |        /-------|---PCEP---|--------\       |
                   |       /        |          |         \      |
                   |   (PCE)        |          |   -    (PCE)   |
                   |    /           <---------->  |D|           |
                   |   /            |  Inter   |   -            |
                   +---|----^-------+  Domain  +----------------+
                       |    |          Link
                     PCEP   |
                       |    | Inter-domain Link
                       |    |
                   +---|----v-------+
                   |   |            |
                   |   | Domain (A) |
                   |   \            |
                   |  (PCE)    -    |
                   |          |S|   |
                   |           -    |
                   +----------------+
                             Figure 6 - BRPC Scenario

   In this use case, a client can use the YANG data model defined in
   this document to request path computation from the PCE that controls
   the source of the tunnel. For example, a client can request to the
   PCE of domain A to compute a path from a source S, within domain A,
   to a destination D, within domain C. Then PCE of domain A will use
   PCEP protocol, as per [RFC5441], to compute the path from S to D and
   in turn gives the final answer to the requester.

2.5. Hierarchical PCE scenario

   [RFC6805] has defined an architecture and extensions to the PCE
   standard to compute inter-domain path following a hierarchical
   method. Two new roles have been defined: parent PCE and child PCE.
   The parent PCE is in charge to coordinate the end-to-end path
   computation. For that purpose it sends to each child PCE involved in
   the multi-domain path computation a PCE Request message to obtain the
   local part of the path. Once received all answer through PCE Response
   message, the parent PCE will merge the different local parts of the
   path to achieve the end-to-end path.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Figure 7 below shows a typical hierarchical scenario where a parent
   PCE request end-to-end path to the different child PCE. Note that a
   PCE could take independently the role of child or parent PCE
   depending of which PCE will request the path.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    |   Domain 5                                                      |
    |                              -----                              |
    |                             |PCE 5|                             |
    |                              -----                              |
    |                                                                 |
    |    ----------------     ----------------     ----------------   |
    |   | Domain 1       |   | Domain 2       |   | Domain 3       |  |
    |   |                |   |                |   |                |  |
    |   |        -----   |   |        -----   |   |        -----   |  |
    |   |       |PCE 1|  |   |       |PCE 2|  |   |       |PCE 3|  |  |
    |   |        -----   |   |        -----   |   |        -----   |  |
    |   |                |   |                |   |                |  |
    |   |            ----|   |----        ----|   |----            |  |
    |   |           |BN11+---+BN21|      |BN23+---+BN31|           |  |
    |   |   -        ----|   |----        ----|   |----        -   |  |
    |   |  |S|           |   |                |   |           |D|  |  |
    |   |   -        ----|   |----        ----|   |----        -   |  |
    |   |           |BN12+---+BN22|      |BN24+---+BN32|           |  |
    |   |            ----|   |----        ----|   |----            |  |
    |   |                |   |                |   |                |  |
    |   |         ----   |   |                |   |   ----         |  |
    |   |        |BN13|  |   |                |   |  |BN33|        |  |
    |    -----------+----     ----------------     ----+-----------   |
    |                \                                /               |
    |                 \       ----------------       /                |
    |                  \     |                |     /                 |
    |                   \    |----        ----|    /                  |
    |                    ----+BN41|      |BN42+----                   |
    |                        |----        ----|                       |
    |                        |                |                       |
    |                        |        -----   |                       |
    |                        |       |PCE 4|  |                       |
    |                        |        -----   |                       |
    |                        |                |                       |
    |                        | Domain 4       |                       |
    |                         ----------------                        |
    |                                                                 |
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
              Figure 7 - Hierarchical domain topology from [RFC6805]

   In this use case, a client can use the YANG data model defined in
   this document to request to the parent PCE a path from a source S to
   a destination D. The parent PCE will in turn contact the child PCEs

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   through PCEP protocol to compute the end-to-end path and then return
   the computed path to the client, using the YANG data model defined in
   this document. For example the YANG data model can be used to request
   to PCE5 acting as parent PCE to compute a path from source S, within
   domain 1, to destination D, within domain 3. PCE5 will contact child
   PCEs of domain 1, 2 and 3 to obtain local part of the end-to-end path
   through the PCEP protocol. Once received the PCE Response message, it
   merges the answers to compute the end-to-end path and send it back to
   the client.

3. Motivations

   This section provides the motivation for the YANG data model defined
   in this document.

   Section 3.1 describes the motivation for a YANG data model to request
   path computation.

   Section 3.2 describes the motivation for a YANG data model which
   complements the TE topology YANG data model defined in [RFC8795].

   Section 3.3 describes the motivation for a YANG RPC which complements
   the TE tunnel YANG data model defined in [TE-TUNNEL].

3.1. Motivation for a YANG Model

3.1.1. Benefits of common data models

   The YANG data model for requesting path computation is closely
   aligned with the YANG data models that provide (abstract) TE topology
   information, i.e., [RFC8795] as well as that are used to configure
   and manage TE tunnels, i.e., [TE-TUNNEL].

   There are many benefits in aligning the data model used for path
   computation requests with the YANG data models used for TE topology
   information and for TE tunnels configuration and management:

   o  There is no need for an error-prone mapping or correlation of
      information.

   o  It is possible to use the same endpoint identifiers in path
      computation requests and in the topology modeling.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  The attributes used for path computation constraints are the same
      as those used when setting up a TE tunnel.

3.1.2. Benefits of a single interface

   The system integration effort is typically lower if a single,
   consistent interface is used by controllers, i.e., one data modeling
   language (i.e., YANG) and a common protocol (e.g., NETCONF or
   RESTCONF).

   Practical benefits of using a single, consistent interface include:

   1. Simple authentication and authorization: The interface between
      different components has to be secured. If different protocols
      have different security mechanisms, ensuring a common access
      control model may result in overhead. For instance, there may be a
      need to deal with different security mechanisms, e.g., different
      credentials or keys. This can result in increased integration
      effort.

   2. Consistency: Keeping data consistent over multiple different
      interfaces or protocols is not trivial. For instance, the sequence
      of actions can matter in certain use cases, or transaction
      semantics could be desired. While ensuring consistency within one
      protocol can already be challenging, it is typically cumbersome to
      achieve that across different protocols.

   3. Testing: System integration requires comprehensive testing,
      including corner cases. The more different technologies are
      involved, the more difficult it is to run comprehensive test cases
      and ensure proper integration.

   4. Middle-box friendliness: Provider and consumer of path computation
      requests may be located in different networks, and middle-boxes
      such as firewalls, NATs, or load balancers may be deployed. In
      such environments it is simpler to deploy a single protocol. Also,
      it may be easier to debug connectivity problems.

   5. Tooling reuse: Implementers may want to implement path computation
      requests with tools and libraries that already exist in
      controllers and/or orchestrators, e.g., leveraging the rapidly
      growing eco-system for YANG tooling.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

3.1.3. Extensibility

   Path computation is only a subset of the typical functionality of a
   controller. In many use cases, issuing path computation requests
   comes along with the need to access other functionality on the same
   system. In addition to obtaining TE topology, for instance also
   configuration of services (set-up/modification/deletion) may be
   required, as well as:

   1. Receiving notifications for topology changes as well as
      integration with fault management

   2. Performance management such as retrieving monitoring and telemetry
      data

   3. Service assurance, e.g., by triggering OAM functionality

   4. Other fulfilment and provisioning actions beyond tunnels and
      services, such as changing QoS configurations

   YANG is a very extensible and flexible data modeling language that
   can be used for all these use cases.

3.2. Interactions with TE topology

   The use cases described in section 2 have been described assuming
   that the topology view exported by each underlying controller to its
   client is aggregated using the "virtual node model", defined in
   [RFC7926].

   TE topology information, e.g., as provided by [RFC8795], could in
   theory be used by an underlying controller to provide TE information
   to its client thus allowing a PCE available within its client to
   perform multi-domain path computation on its own, without requesting
   path computations to the underlying controllers.

   In case the client does not implement a PCE function, as discussed in
   section 1, it could not perform path computation based on TE topology
   information and would instead need to request path computation from
   the underlying controllers to get the information it needs to find
   the optimal end-to-end path.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   In case the client implements a PCE function, as discussed in section
   1, the TE topology information needs to be complete and accurate,
   which would bring to scalability issues.

   Using TE topology to provide a "virtual link model" aggregation, as
   described in [RFC7926], may be insufficient, unless the aggregation
   provides a complete and accurate information, which would still cause
   scalability issues, as described in sections 3.2.1 below.

   Using TE topology abstraction, as described in [RFC7926], may lead to
   compute an unfeasible path, as described in [RFC7926] in section
   3.2.2 below.

   Therefore when computing an optimal multi-domain path, there is a
   scalability trade-off between providing complete and accurate TE
   information and the number of path computation requests to the
   underlying controllers.

   The TE topology information used, in a complimentary way, to reduce
   the number for path computation requests to the underlying
   controllers, are described in section 3.2.3 below.

3.2.1. TE topology aggregation

   Using the TE topology model, as defined in [RFC8795], the underlying
   controller can export the whole TE domain as a single TE node with a
   "detailed connectivity matrix" (which provides specific TE
   attributes, such as delay, Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) and other
   TE metrics, between each ingress and egress links).

   The information provided by the "detailed connectivity matrix" would
   be equivalent to the information that should be provided by "virtual
   link model" as defined in [RFC7926].

   For example, in the Packet/Optical Integration use case, described in
   section 2.1, the Optical Domain Controller can make the information
   shown in Figure 3 available to the Packet/Optical Coordinator as part
   of the TE topology information and the Packet/Optical Coordinator
   could use this information to calculate on its own the optimal path
   between R1 and R2, without requesting any additional information to
   the Optical Domain Controller.

   However, when designing the amount of information to provide within
   the "detailed connectivity matrix", there is a tradeoff to be

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   considered between accuracy (i.e., providing "all" the information
   that might be needed by the PCE available within the client) and
   scalability.

   Figure 8 below shows another example, similar to Figure 3, where
   there are two possible Optical paths between VP1 and VP4 with
   different properties (e.g., available bandwidth and cost).

                    ............................
                    :  /--------------------\  :
                    : /       cost=65        \ :
                    :/    available-bw=10G    \:
                    O VP1                  VP4 O
           cost=10 /:\                        /:\ cost=10
                  / : \----------------------/ : \
          +----+ /  :         cost=50          :  \ +----+
          |    |/   :     available-bw=2G      :   \|    |
          | R1 |    :                          :    | R2 |
          |    |\   :                          :   /|    |
          +----+ \  :  /--------------------\  :  / +----+
                  \ : /       cost=55        \ : /
            cost=5 \:/    available-bw=3G     \:/ cost=5
                    O VP2                  VP5 O
                    :                          :
                    :..........................:

              Figure 8 - Packet/Optical Integration path computation
                            example with multiple choices

   If the information in the "detailed connectivity matrix" is not
   complete/accurate, we can have the following drawbacks:

   o  If only the VP1-VP4 path with available bandwidth of 2 Gb/s and
      cost 50 is reported, the client's PCE will fail to compute a 5
      Gb/s path between routers R1 and R2, although this would be
      feasible;

   o  If only the VP1-VP4 path with available bandwidth of 10 Gb/s and
      cost 60 is reported, the client's PCE will compute, as optimal,
      the 1 Gb/s path between R1 and R2 going through the VP2-VP5 path
      within the optical domain while the optimal path would actually be
      the one going thought the VP1-VP4 sub-path (with cost 50) within
      the optical domain.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Reporting all the information, as in Figure 8, using the "detailed
   connectivity matrix", is quite challenging from a scalability
   perspective. The amount of this information is not just based on
   number of end points (which would scale as N-square), but also on
   many other parameters, including client rate, user
   constraints/policies for the service, e.g. max latency < N ms, max
   cost, etc., exclusion policies to route around busy links, min
   Optical Signal to Noise Ratio (OSNR) margin, max pre-Forward Error
   Correction (FEC) Bit Error Rate (BER) etc. All these constraints
   could be different based on connectivity requirements.

   Examples of how the "detailed connectivity matrix" can be dimensioned
   are described in Appendix A.

   It is also worth noting that the "connectivity matrix" has been
   originally defined in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON),
   [RFC7446], to report the connectivity constrains of a physical node
   within the Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) network: the
   information it contains is pretty "static" and therefore, once taken
   and stored in the TE data base, it can be always being considered
   valid and up-to-date in path computation request.

   The "connectivity matrix" is sometimes confused with "optical reach
   table" that contain multiple (e.g. k-shortest) regen-free reachable
   paths for every A-Z node combination in the network. Optical reach
   tables can be calculated offline, utilizing vendor optical design and
   planning tools, and periodically uploaded to the Controller: these
   optical path reach tables are fairly static. However, to get the
   connectivity matrix, between any two sites, either a regen free path
   can be used, if one is available, or multiple regen free paths are
   concatenated to get from the source to the destination, which can be
   a very large combination. Additionally, when the optical path within
   optical domain needs to be computed, it can result in different paths
   based on input objective, constraints, and network conditions. In
   summary, even though "optical reach table" is fairly static, which
   regen free paths to build the connectivity matrix between any source
   and destination is very dynamic, and is done using very sophisticated
   routing algorithms.

   Using the "basic connectivity matrix" with an abstract node to
   abstract the information regarding the connectivity constraints of an
   Optical domain, would make this information more "dynamic" since the
   connectivity constraints of an optical domain can change over time
   because some optical paths that are feasible at a given time may

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   become unfeasible at a later time when e.g., another optical path is
   established.

   The information in the "detailed connectivity matrix" is even more
   dynamic since the establishment of another optical path may change
   some of the parameters (e.g., delay or available bandwidth) in the
   "detailed connectivity matrix" while not changing the feasibility of
   the path.

   There is therefore the need to keep the information in the "detailed
   connectivity matrix" updated which means that there another tradeoff
   between the accuracy (i.e., providing "all" the information that
   might be needed by the client's PCE) and having up-to-date
   information. The more the information is provided and the longer it
   takes to keep it up-to-date which increases the likelihood that the
   client's PCE computes paths using not updated information.

   It seems therefore quite challenging to have a "detailed connectivity
   matrix" that provides accurate, scalable and updated information to
   allow the client's PCE to take optimal decisions by its own.

   Considering the example in Figure 8 with the approach defined in this
   document, the client, when it needs to set up an end-to-end path, it
   can request the Optical Domain Controller to compute a set of optimal
   paths (e.g., for VP1-VP4 and VP2-VP5) and take decisions based on the
   information received:

   o  When setting up a 5 Gb/s path between routers R1 and R2, the
      Optical Domain Controller may report only the VP1-VP4 path as the
      only feasible path: the Packet/Optical Coordinator can
      successfully set up the end-to-end path passing though this
      optical path;

   o  When setting up a 1 Gb/s path between routers R1 and R2, the
      Optical Domain Controller (knowing that the path requires only 1
      Gb/s) can report both the VP1-VP4 path, with cost 50, and the VP2-
      VP5 path, with cost 65. The Packet/Optical Coordinator can then
      compute the optimal path which is passing thought the VP1-VP4 sub-
      path (with cost 50) within the optical domain.

3.2.2. TE topology abstraction

   Using the TE topology model, as defined in [RFC8795], the underlying
   controller can export to its client an abstract TE topology, composed

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   by a set of TE nodes and TE links, representing the abstract view of
   the topology under its control.

   For example, in the multi-domain TE network use case, described in
   section 2.2, the TE Domain Controller 1 can export a TE topology
   encompassing the TE nodes A, B, C and D and the TE links
   interconnecting them. In a similar way, the TE Domain Controller 2
   can export a TE topology encompassing the TE nodes E, F, G and H and
   the TE links interconnecting them.

   In this example, for simplicity reasons, each abstract TE node maps
   with each physical node, but this is not necessary.

   In order to set up a multi-domain TE path (e.g., between nodes A and
   H), the Multi-Domain Controller can compute by its own an optimal
   end-to-end path based on the abstract TE topology information
   provided by the domain controllers. For example:

   o  Multi-Domain Controller can compute, based on its own TED data,
      the optimal multi-domain path being A-B-C-E-G-H, and then request
      the TE Domain Controllers to set up the A-B-C and E-G-H intra-
      domain paths

   o  But, during path set-up, the TE Domain Controller may find out
      that A-B-C intra-domain path is not feasible (as discussed in
      section 2.2, in optical networks it is typical to have some paths
      not being feasible due to optical constraints that are known only
      by the Optical Domain Controller), while only the path A-B-D is
      feasible

   o  So what the Multi-Domain Controller has computed is not good and
      it needs to re-start the path computation from scratch

  As discussed in section 3.2.1, providing more extensive abstract
  information from the TE Domain Controllers to the Multi-Domain
  Controller may lead to scalability problems.

  In a sense this is similar to the problem of routing and wavelength
  assignment within an optical domain. It is possible to do first
  routing (step 1) and then wavelength assignment (step 2), but the
  chances of ending up with a good path is low. Alternatively, it is
  possible to do combined routing and wavelength assignment, which is
  known to be a more optimal and effective way for optical path set-up.
  Similarly, it is possible to first compute an abstract end-to-end

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

  path within the Multi-Domain Controller (step 1) and then compute an
  intra-domain path within each optical domain (step 2), but there are
  more chances not to find a path or to get a suboptimal path than
  performing multiple per-domain path computations and then stitch
  them.

3.2.3. Complementary use of TE topology and path computation

   As discussed in section 2.2, there are some scalability issues with
   path computation requests in a multi-domain TE network with many TE
   domains, in terms of the number of requests to send to the TE Domain
   Controllers. It would therefore be worthwhile using the abstract TE
   topology information provided by the TE Domain Controllers to limit
   the number of requests.

   An example can be described considering the multi-domain abstract TE
   topology shown in Figure 9. In this example, an end-to-end TE path
   between domains A and F needs to be set up. The transit TE domain
   should be selected between domains B, C, D and E.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                          .........B.........
                          : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :
                          :/               \:
                      +---O  NOT FEASIBLE   O---+
                cost=5|   :                 :   |
    ......A......     |   :.................:   |     ......F......
    :           :     |                         |     :           :
    :           O-----+   .........C.........   +-----O           :
    :           :         : /-------------\ :         :           :
    :           :         :/               \:         :           :
    :  cost<=20 O---------O   cost <= 30    O---------O cost<=20  :
    :          /: cost=5  :                 : cost=5  :\          :
    :  /------/ :         :.................:         : \------\  :
    : /         :                                     :         \ :
    :/ cost<=25 :         .........D.........         : cost<=25 \:
    O-----------O-------+ : /-------------\ : +-------O-----------O
    :\          : cost=5| :/               \: |cost=5 :          /:
    : \         :       +-O   cost <= 30    O-+       :         / :
    :  \------\ :         :                 :         : /------/  :
    : cost>=30 \:         :.................:         :/ cost>=30 :
    :           O-----+                         +-----O           :
    :...........:     |   .........E.........   |     :...........:
                      |   : /-------------\ :   |
                cost=5|   :/               \:   |cost=5
                      +---O   cost >= 30    O---+
                          :                 :
                          :.................:

               Figure 9 - Multi-domain with many domains (Topology
                                    information)

   The actual cost of each intra-domain path is not known a priori from
   the abstract topology information. The Multi-Domain Controller only
   knows, from the TE topology provided by the underlying domain
   controllers, the feasibility of some intra-domain paths and some
   upper-bound and/or lower-bound cost information. With this
   information, together with the cost of inter-domain links, the Multi-
   Domain Controller can understand by its own that:

   o  Domain B cannot be selected as the path connecting domains A and F
      is not feasible;

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  Domain E cannot be selected as a transit domain since it is known
      from the abstract topology information provided by domain
      controllers that the cost of the multi-domain path A-E-F (which is
      100, in the best case) will be always be higher than the cost of
      the multi-domain paths A-D-F (which is 90, in the worst case) and
      A-C-F (which is 80, in the worst case).

   Therefore, the Multi-Domain Controller can understand by its own that
   the optimal multi-domain path could be either A-D-F or A-C-F but it
   cannot know which one of the two possible option actually provides
   the optimal end-to-end path.

   The Multi-Domain Controller can therefore request path computation
   only to the TE Domain Controllers A, D, C and F (and not to all the
   possible TE Domain Controllers).

                          .........B.........
                          :                 :
                      +---O                 O---+
    ......A......     |   :.................:   |     ......F......
    :           :     |                         |     :           :
    :           O-----+   .........C.........   +-----O           :
    :           :         : /-------------\ :         :           :
    :           :         :/               \:         :           :
    :  cost=15  O---------O    cost = 25    O---------O  cost=10  :
    :          /: cost=5  :                 : cost=5  :\          :
    :  /------/ :         :.................:         : \------\  :
    : /         :                                     :         \ :
    :/ cost=10  :         .........D.........         : cost=15  \:
    O-----------O-------+ : /-------------\ : +-------O-----------O
    :           : cost=5| :/               \: |cost=5 :           :
    :           :       +-O    cost = 15    O-+       :           :
    :           :         :                 :         :           :
    :           :         :.................:         :           :
    :           O-----+                         +-----O           :
    :...........:     |   .........E.........   |     :...........:
                      |   :                 :   |
                      +---O                 O---+
                          :.................:

           Figure 10 - Multi-domain with many domains (Path Computation
                                    information)

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Based on these requests, the Multi-Domain Controller can know the
   actual cost of each intra-domain paths which belongs to potential
   optimal end-to-end paths, as shown in Figure 10, and then compute the
   optimal end-to-end path (e.g., A-D-F, having total cost of 50,
   instead of A-C-F having a total cost of 70).

3.3. Path Computation RPC

   The TE tunnel YANG data model, defined in [TE-TUNNEL], can support
   the need to request path computation, as described in section 5.1.2
   of [TE-TUNNEL].

   This solution is stateful since the state of each created "compute-
   only" TE tunnel path needs to be maintained, in the YANG datastores
   (at least in the running datastore and operational datastore), and
   updated, when underlying network conditions change.

   The RPC mechanism allows requesting path computation using a simple
   atomic operation, without creating any state in the YANG datastores,
   and it is the natural option/choice, especially with stateless PCE.

   It is very useful to provide both the options of using an RPC as well
   as of setting up TE tunnel paths in "compute-only" mode. It is
   suggested to use the RPC as much as possible and to rely on
   "compute-only" TE tunnel paths, when really needed.

   Using the RPC solution would imply that the underlying controller
   (e.g., a PNC) computes a path twice during the process to set up an
   LSP: at time T1, when its client (e.g., an MDSC) sends a path
   computation RPC request to it, and later, at time T2, when the same
   client (MDSC) creates a TE tunnel requesting the set-up of the LSP.
   The underlying assumption is that, if network conditions have not
   changed, the same path that has been computed at time T1 is also
   computed at time T2 by the underlying controller (e.g. PNC) and
   therefore the path that is set up at time T2 is exactly the same path
   that has been computed at time T1.

   However, since the operation is stateless, there is no guarantee that
   the returned path would still be available when path set-up is
   requested: this does not cause major issues when the time between
   path computation and path set-up is short (especially if compared
   with the time that would be needed to update the information of a
   very detailed connectivity matrix).

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   In most of the cases, there is even no need to guarantee that the
   path that has been set up is the exactly same as the path that has
   been returned by path computation, especially if it has the same or
   even better metrics. Depending on the abstraction level applied by
   the server, the client may also not know the actual computed path.

   The most important requirement is that the required global objectives
   (e.g., multi-domain path metrics and constraints) are met. For this
   reason a path verification phase is always necessary to verify that
   the actual path that has been set up meets the global objectives (for
   example in a multi-domain network, the resulting end-to-end path
   meets the required end-to-end metrics and constraints).

   In most of the cases, even if the path being set up is not exactly
   the same as the path returned by path computation, its metrics and
   constraints are "good enough" and the path verification passes
   successfully. In the few corner cases where the path verification
   fails, it is possible repeat the whole process (path computation,
   path set-up and path verification).

   In case it is required to set up at T2 exactly the same path computed
   at T1, the RPC solution should not be used and, instead, a "compute-
   only" TE tunnel path should be set up, allowing also notifications in
   case the computed path has been changed.

   In this case, at time T1, the client (MDSC) creates a TE tunnel in a
   compute-only mode in the running datastore and later, at time T2,
   changes the configuration of that TE tunnel (not to be any more in a
   compute-only mode) to trigger the set-up of the LSP over the path
   which have been computed at time T1 and reported in the operational
   datastore.

   It is worth noting that also using the "compute-only" TE tunnel path,
   although increasing the likelihood that the computed path is
   available at path set-up, does not guarantee that because
   notifications may not be reliable or delivered on time. Path
   verification is needed also in this case.

   The solution based on "compute-only" TE tunnel path has also the
   following drawbacks:

   o  Several messages required for any path computation

   o  Requires persistent storage in the underlying controller

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  Need for garbage collection for stranded paths

   o  Process burden to detect changes on the computed paths in order to
      provide notifications update

3.3.1. Temporary reporting of the computed path state

   This section describes an optional extension to the stateless
   behavior of the path computation RPC, where the underlying
   controller, after having received a path computation RPC request,
   maintains some "transient state" associated with the computed path,
   allowing the client to request the set-up of exactly that path, if
   still available.

   This is similar to the "compute-only" TE tunnel path solution but, to
   avoid the drawbacks of the stateful approach, is leveraging the path
   computation RPC and the separation between configuration and
   operational datastore, as defined in the NMDA architecture [RFC8342].

   The underlying controller, after having computed a path, as requested
   by a path computation RPC, also creates a TE tunnel instance within
   the operational datastore, to store that computed path. This would be
   similar to a "compute-only" TE tunnel path, with the only difference
   that there is no associated TE tunnel instance within the running
   datastore.

   Since the underlying controller stores in the operational datastore
   the computed path based on an abstract topology it exposes, it also
   remembers, internally, which is the actual native path (physical
   path), within its native topology (physical topology), associated
   with that compute-only TE tunnel instance.

   Afterwards, the client (e.g., MDSC) can request the set-up of that
   specific path by creating a TE tunnel instance (not in compute-only
   mode) in the running datastore using the same tunnel-name of
   the existing TE tunnel in the operational datastore: this will
   trigger the underlying controller to set up that path, if still
   available.

   There are still cases where the path being set up is not exactly the
   same as the path that has been computed:

   o  When the tunnel is configured with path constraints which are not
      compatible with the computed path;

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  When the tunnel set-up is requested after the resources of the
      computed path are no longer available;

   o  When the tunnel set-up is requested after the computed path is no
      longer known (e.g. due to a server reboot) by the underlying
      controller.

   In all these cases, the underlying controller should compute and set
   up a new path.

   Therefore the "path verification" phase, as described in section 3.3
   above, is always needed to check that the path that has been set up
   is still "good enough".

   Since this new approach is not completely stateless, garbage
   collection is implemented using a timeout that, when it expires,
   triggers the removal of the computed path from the operational
   datastore. This operation is fully controlled by the underlying
   controller without the need for any action to be taken by the client
   that is not able to act on the operational datastore. The default
   value of this timeout is 10 minutes but a different value may be
   configured by the client.

   In addition, it is possible for the client to tag each path
   computation request with a transaction-id allowing for a faster
   removal of all the paths associated with a transaction-id, without
   waiting for their timers to expire.

   The underlying controller can remove from the operational datastore
   all the paths computed with a given transaction-id which have not
   been set up either when it receives a Path Delete RPC request for
   that transaction-id or, automatically, right after the set-up up of a
   path that has been previously computed with that transaction-id.

   This possibility is useful when multiple paths are computed but, at
   most, only one is set up (e.g., in multi-domain path computation
   scenario scenarios). After the selected path has been set up (e.g, in
   one domain during multi-domain path set-up), all the other
   alternative computed paths can be automatically deleted by the
   underlying controller (since no longer needed). The client can also
   request, using the Path Delete RPC request, the underlying controller
   to remove all the computed paths, if none of them is going to be set
   up (e.g., in a transit domain not being selected by multi-domain path
   computation and so not being automatically deleted).

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   This approach is complimentary and not alternative to the timer which
   is always needed to avoid stranded computed paths being stored in the
   operational datastore when no path is set up and no explicit Path
   Delete RPC request is received.

4. Path computation and optimization for multiple paths

   There are use cases, where it is advantageous to request path
   computation for a set of paths, through a network or through a
   network domain, using a single request [RFC5440].

   In this case, sending a single request for multiple path
   computations, instead of sending multiple requests for each path
   computation, would reduce the protocol overhead and it would consume
   less resources (e.g., threads in the client and server).

   In the context of a typical multi-domain TE network, there could
   multiple choices for the ingress/egress points of a domain and the
   Multi-Domain Controller needs to request path computation between all
   the ingress/egress pairs to select the best pair. For example, in the
   example of section 2.2, the Multi-Domain Controller needs to request
   the TE Network Controller 1 to compute the A-C and the A-D paths and
   to the TE Network Controller 2 to compute the E-H and the F-H paths.

   It is also possible that the Multi-Domain Controller receives a
   request to set up a group of multiple end to end connections. The
   Multi-Domain Controller needs to request each TE domain Controller to
   compute multiple paths, one (or more) for each end to end connection.

   There are also scenarios where it can be needed to request path
   computation for a set of paths in a synchronized fashion.

   One example could be computing multiple diverse paths. Computing a
   set of diverse paths in an unsynchronized fashion, leads to the
   possibility of not being able to satisfy the diversity requirement.
   In this case, it is preferable to compute a sub-optimal primary path
   for which a diversely routed secondary path exists.

   There are also scenarios where it is needed to request optimizing a
   set of paths using objective functions that apply to the whole set of
   paths, see [RFC5541], e.g. to minimize the sum of the costs of all
   the computed paths in the set.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

5. YANG data model for requesting Path Computation

   This document define a YANG RPC to request path computation as an
   "augmentation" of tunnel-rpc, defined in [TE-TUNNEL]. This model
   provides the RPC input attributes that are needed to request path
   computation and the RPC output attributes that are needed to report
   the computed paths.

     augment /te:tunnels-path-compute/te:input/te:path-compute-info:
       +-- path-request* [request-id]
       |  +-- request-id                            uint32
       |  ...........

     augment /te:tunnels-path-compute/te:output/te:path-compute-result:
       +--ro response* [response-id]
          +--ro response-id                         uint32
          +--ro computed-paths-properties
          |  +--ro computed-path-properties* [k-index]
          |     +--ro k-index            uint8
          |     +--ro path-properties
          |     ...........

   This model extensively re-uses the grouping defined in [TE-TUNNEL]
   and [RFC8776] to ensure maximal syntax and semantics commonality.

   This YANG data model allows one RPC to include multiple path
   requests, each path request being identified by a request-id.
   Therefore, one RPC can return multiple responses, one for each path
   request, being identified by a response-id equal to the corresponding
   request-id. Each response reports one or more computed paths, as
   requested by the k-requested-paths attribute. By default, each
   response reports one computed path.

5.1. Synchronization of multiple path computation requests

   The YANG data model permits the synchronization of a set of multiple
   path requests (identified by specific request-id) all related to a
   "svec" container emulating the syntax of the Synchronization VECtor
   (SVEC) PCEP object, defined in [RFC5440].

       +-- synchronization* []
          +-- svec

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

          |  +-- relaxable?           boolean
          |  +-- disjointness?        te-path-disjointness
          |  +-- request-id-number*   uint32
          +-- svec-constraints
          |  +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type]
          |     +-- metric-type    identityref
          |     +-- upper-bound?   uint64
          +-- path-srlgs-lists
          |  +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage]
          |     +-- usage     identityref
          |     +-- values*   srlg
          +-- path-srlgs-names
          |  +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage]
          |     +-- usage    identityref
          |     +-- names*   string
          +-- exclude-objects
          |  +-- excludes* []
          |     +-- (type)?
          |        +--:(numbered-node-hop)
          |        |  +-- numbered-node-hop
          |        |     +-- node-id     te-node-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
          |        +--:(numbered-link-hop)
          |        |  +-- numbered-link-hop
          |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
          |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
          |        +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
          |        |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
          |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
          |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
          |        +--:(as-number)
          |        |  +-- as-number-hop
          |        |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
          |        |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
          |        +--:(label)
          |           +-- label-hop

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

          |              +-- te-label
          |                 +-- (technology)?
          |                 |  +--:(generic)
          |                 |     +-- generic?
          |                 |             rt-types:generalized-label
          |                 +-- direction?       te-label-direction
          +-- optimizations
             +-- (algorithm)?
                +--:(metric) {te-types:path-optimization-metric}?
                |  +-- optimization-metric* [metric-type]
                |     +-- metric-type    identityref
                |     +-- weight?        uint8
                +--:(objective-function)
                         {te-types:path-optimization-objective-
   function}?
                   +-- objective-function
                      +-- objective-function-type?   identityref

   The model, in addition to the metric types, defined in [RFC8776],
   which can be applied to each individual path request, supports also
   additional metric types, which apply to a set of synchronized
   requests, as referenced in [RFC5541]. These additional metric types
   are defined by the following YANG identities:

   o  svec-metric-type: base YANG identity from which cumulative metric
      types identities are derived.

   o  svec-metric-cumul-te: cumulative TE cost metric type, as defined
      in [RFC5541].

   o  svec-metric-cumul-igp: cumulative IGP cost metric type, as defined
      in [RFC5541].

   o  svec-metric-cumul-hop: cumulative Hop metric type, representing
      the cumulative version of the Hop metric type defined in
      [RFC8776].

   o  svec-metric-aggregate-bandwidth-consumption: aggregate bandwidth
      consumption metric type, as defined in [RFC5541].

   o  svec-metric-load-of-the-most-loaded-link: load of the most loaded
      link metric type, as defined in [RFC5541].

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

5.2. Returned metric values

   This YANG data model provides a way to return the values of the
   metrics computed by the path computation in the output of RPC,
   together with other important information (e.g. srlg, affinities,
   explicit route), emulating the syntax of the "C" flag of the "METRIC"
   PCEP object [RFC5440]:

          |     +--ro path-properties
          |        +--ro path-metric* [metric-type]
          |        |  +--ro metric-type           identityref
          |        |  +--ro accumulative-value?   uint64
          |        +--ro path-affinities-values
          |        |  +--ro path-affinities-value* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage    identityref
          |        |     +--ro value?   admin-groups
          |        +--ro path-affinity-names
          |        |  +--ro path-affinity-name* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage            identityref
          |        |     +--ro affinity-name* [name]
          |        |        +--ro name    string
          |        +--ro path-srlgs-lists
          |        |  +--ro path-srlgs-list* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage     identityref
          |        |     +--ro values*   srlg
          |        +--ro path-srlgs-names
          |        |  +--ro path-srlgs-name* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage    identityref
          |        |     +--ro names*   string
          |        +--ro path-route-objects
          |        ...........

   It also allows the client to request which information (metrics, srlg
   and/or affinities) should be returned:

       |  +-- request-id                            uint32
       |  ...........
       |  +-- requested-metrics* [metric-type]
       |  |  +-- metric-type    identityref
       |  +-- return-srlgs?                         boolean

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  +-- return-affinities?                    boolean
       |  ...........

   This feature is essential for path computation in a multi-domain TE
   network as described in section 2.2. In this case, the metrics
   returned by a path computation requested to a given underlying
   controller must be used by the client to compute the best end-to-end
   path. If they are missing, the client cannot compare different paths
   calculated by the underlying controllers and choose the best one for
   the optimal end-to-end (e2e) path.

5.3. Multiple Paths Requests for the same TE tunnel

   The YANG data model allows including multiple requests for different
   paths intended to be used within the same tunnel or within different
   tunnels.

   When multiple requested paths are intended to be used within the same
   tunnel (e.g., requesting path computation for the primary and
   secondary paths of a protected tunnel), the set of attributes that
   are intended to be configured on per-tunnel basis rather than on per-
   path basis are common to all these path requests. These attributes
   includes both attributes which can be configured only a per-tunnel
   basis (e.g., tunnel-name, source/destination TTP, encoding and
   switching-type) as well attributes which can be configured both on a
   per-tunnel and on a per-path basis (e.g., the te-bandwidth or the
   associations).

   Therefore, a tunnel-attributes list is defined, within the path
   computation request RPC:

       +-- tunnel-attributes* [tunnel-name]
       |  +-- tunnel-name               string
       |  +-- encoding?                 identityref
       |  +-- switching-type?           identityref
       |  ...........

   The path requests that are intended to be used within the same tunnel
   should reference the same entry in the tunnel-attributes list. This
   allows:

   o  avoiding repeating the same set of per-tunnel parameters on
      multiple requested paths;

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  the server to understand what attributes are intended to be
      configured on a per-tunnel basis (e.g., the te-bandwidth
      configured in the tunnel-attributes) and what attributes are
      intended to be configured on a per-path basis(e.g., the te-
      bandwidth configured in the path-request). This could be useful
      especially when the server also creates a TE tunnel instance
      within the operational datastore to report the computed paths, as
      described in section 3.3.1: in this case, the tunnel-name is also
      used as the suggested name for that TE tunnel instance.

   The YANG data model allows also including requests for paths intended
   to modify existing tunnels (e.g., adding a protection path for an
   existing un-protected tunnel). In this case, the per-tunnel
   attributes are already provided in an existing TE tunnel instance and
   do not need to be re-configured in the path computation request RPC.
   Therefore, these requests should reference an existing TE tunnel
   instance.

   It is also possible to request computing paths without indicating in
   which tunnel they are intended to be used (e.g., in case of an
   unprotected tunnel). In this case, the per-tunnel attributes could be
   provided together with the per-path attributes in the path request,
   without using the tunnel-attributes list.

   The choices below are defined to distinguish the cases above:

   o  whether the per-tunnel attributes are configured by reference
      (providing a leafref), to:

       o either a TE tunnel instance, if it exists;

       o or to an entry of the tunnel-attributes list, if the TE tunnel
          instance does not exist;

   o  or by value, providing the set of tunnel attributes within the
      path request:

       |  +-- (tunnel-attributes)?
       |  |  +--:(reference)
       |  |  |  +-- tunnel-reference
       |  |  |     +-- (tunnel-exist)?
       |  |  |     |  +--:(tunnel-ref)
       |  |  |     |  |  +-- tunnel-ref                te:tunnel-ref
       |  |  |     |  +--:(tunnel-attributes-ref)

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |  |     |     +-- tunnel-attributes-ref     leafref
       |  |  ...........
       |  |  +--:(value)
       |  |     +-- tunnel-name?                    string
       |  |     ...........
       |  |     +-- encoding?                       identityref
       |  |     +-- switching-type?                 identityref
       |  |     ...........

5.3.1. Tunnel attributes specified by value

   The (value) case provides the set of attributes that are configured
   only on per-tunnel basis (e.g., tunnel-name, source/destination TTP,
   encoding and switching-type).

   In this case, it is assumed that the requested path will be the only
   path within a tunnel.

   If the requested path is a transit segment of a multi-domain end-to-
   end path, it can be of any type (primary, secondary, reverse-primary
   or reverse-secondary), as specified by the (path-role) choice:

       |  |     +-- (path-role)?
       |  |     |  +--:(primary-path)
       |  |     |  +--:(secondary-path)
       |  |     |  |  +-- secondary-path!
       |  |     |  |     +-- primary-path-name?   string
       |  |     |  +--:(primary-reverse-path)
       |  |     |  |  +-- primary-reverse-path!
       |  |     |  |     +-- primary-path-name?   string
       |  |     |  +--:(secondary-reverse-path)
       |  |     |     +-- secondary-reverse-path!
       |  |     |        +-- primary-path-name?           string
       |  |     |        +-- primary-reverse-path-name?   string

   In all the other cases, the requested path can only be a primary
   path.

   The secondary-path, the primary-reverse-path and the secondary-
   reverse-path are presence container used to indicate the role of the
   path: by default, the path is assumed to be a primary path.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   They optionally can contain the name of the primary-path under which
   the requested path could be associated within the YANG tree structure
   defined in [TE-TUNNEL], which could be useful when the server also
   creates a TE tunnel instance within the operational datastore to
   report the computed paths, as described in section 3.3.1: in this
   case, the tunnel-name and the path names are also used as the
   suggested name for that TE tunnel and path instances.

5.3.2. Tunnel attributes specified by reference

   The (reference) case provides the information needed to associate
   multiple path requests that are intended to be used within the same
   tunnel.

   In order to indicate the role of the path being requested within the
   intended tunnel (e.g., primary or secondary path), the (path-role)
   choice is defined:

       |  |  |     +-- (path-role)
       |  |  |        +--:(primary-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- primary-path!
       |  |  |        |     ...........
       |  |  |        +--:(secondary-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- secondary-path
       |  |  |        |     ...........
       |  |  |        +--:(primary-reverse-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- primary-reverse-path
       |  |  |        |     ...........
       |  |  |        +--:(secondary-reverse-path)
       |  |  |           +-- secondary-reverse-path
       |  |  |              ...........

   The primary-path is a presence container used to indicate that the
   requested path is intended to be used as a primary path. It can also
   contain some attributes which are configured only on primary paths
   (e.g., the k-requested-paths).

   The secondary-path container indicates that the requested path is
   intended to be used as a secondary path and it contains at least
   references to one or more primary paths which can use it as a
   candidate secondary path:

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |  |        |  +-- secondary-path
       |  |  |        |     ...........
       |  |  |        |     +-- primary-path-ref* []
       |  |  |        |        +-- (primary-path-exist)?
       |  |  |        |           +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |        |           |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        |           +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |        |              +-- path-request-ref    leafref

   A requested secondary path can reference any requested primary paths,
   and, in case they are intended to be used within an existing TE
   tunnel, it could also reference any existing primary-paths.

   The secondary-path container can also contain some attributes which
   are configured only on secondary paths (e.g., the protection-type).

   The primary-reverse-path container indicates that the requested path
   is intended to be used as a primary reverse path and it contains only
   the reference to the primary path which is intended to use it as a
   reverse path:

       |  |  |        |  +-- primary-reverse-path
       |  |  |        |     +-- (primary-path-exist)?
       |  |  |        |        +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |        |        |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        |        +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |        |           +-- path-request-ref    leafref

   A requested primary reverse path can reference either a requested
   primary path, or, in case it is intended to be used within an
   existing TE tunnel, an existing primary-path.

   The secondary-reverse-path container indicates that the requested
   path is intended to be used as a secondary reverse path and it
   contains at least references to one or more primary paths, whose
   primary reverse path can use it as a candidate secondary reverse
   path:

       |  |  |           +-- secondary-reverse-path
       |  |  |              ...........
       |  |  |              +-- primary-reverse-path-ref* []
       |  |  |                 +-- (primary-reverse-path-exist)?

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |  |                    +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |                    |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |                    +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |                       +-- path-request-ref    leafref

   A requested secondary reverse path can reference any requested
   primary paths, and, in case they are intended to be used within an
   existing TE tunnel, it could reference also existing primary-paths.

   The secondary-reverse-path container can also contain some attributes
   which are configured only on secondary reverse paths (e.g., the
   protection-type).

   In case the requested path is a transit segment of a multi-domain
   end-to-end path, the primary-path may not be needed to be
   setup/computed. However, the request for path computation of a
   secondary-path or a primary-reverse or of a secondary-reverse-path
   requires that the primary-path exists or it is requested within the
   same RPC request. In the latter case, the path request for the
   primary-path should have an empty ERO to indicate to the server that
   path computation is not requested and no path properties will
   therefore be returned in the RPC response.

5.4. Multi-Layer Path Computation

   The models supports requesting multi-layer path computation following
   the same approach based on dependency tunnels, as defined in [TE-
   TUNNEL].

   The tunnel-attributes of a given client-layer path request can
   reference server-layer TE tunnels which can already exist in the YANG
   datastore or be specified in the tunnel-attributes list, within the
   same RPC request:

       |     +-- dependency-tunnels
       |     |  +-- dependency-tunnel* [name]
       |     |  |  +-- name              -> /te:te/tunnels/tunnel/name
       |     |  |  +-- encoding?         identityref
       |     |  |  +-- switching-type?   identityref
       |     |  +-- dependency-tunnel-attributes* [name]
       |     |     +-- name              leafref
       |     |     +-- encoding?         identityref
       |     |     +-- switching-type?   identityref

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   In a similar way as in [TE-TUNNEL], the server-layer tunnel
   attributes should provide the information of what would be the
   dynamic link in the client layer topology supported by that tunnel,
   if instantiated:

       |     +-- hierarchical-link
       |        +-- local-te-node-id?         te-types:te-node-id
       |        +-- local-te-link-tp-id?      te-types:te-tp-id
       |        +-- remote-te-node-id?        te-types:te-node-id
       |        +-- te-topology-identifier
       |           +-- provider-id?   te-global-id
       |           +-- client-id?     te-global-id
       |           +-- topology-id?   te-topology-id

   It is worth noting that since path computation RPC is stateless, the
   dynamic hierarchical links configured for the server-layer tunnel
   attributes cannot be used for path computation of any client-layer
   path unless explicitly referenced in the dependency-tunnel-attributes
   list within the same RPC request.

6. YANG data model for TE path computation

6.1. Tree diagram

   Figure 11 below shows the tree diagram of the YANG data model defined
   in module ietf-te-path-computation.yang.

   module: ietf-te-path-computation

     augment /te:tunnels-path-compute/te:input/te:path-compute-info:
       +-- path-request* [request-id]
       |  +-- request-id                            uint32
       |  +-- (tunnel-attributes)?
       |  |  +--:(reference)
       |  |  |  +-- tunnel-reference
       |  |  |     +-- (tunnel-exist)?
       |  |  |     |  +--:(tunnel-ref)
       |  |  |     |  |  +-- tunnel-ref                te:tunnel-ref
       |  |  |     |  +--:(tunnel-attributes-ref)
       |  |  |     |     +-- tunnel-attributes-ref     leafref

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |  |     +-- path-name?                      string
       |  |  |     +-- (path-role)
       |  |  |        +--:(primary-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- primary-path!
       |  |  |        |     +-- preference?          uint8
       |  |  |        |     +-- k-requested-paths?   uint8
       |  |  |        +--:(secondary-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- secondary-path
       |  |  |        |     +-- preference?           uint8
       |  |  |        |     +-- protection-type?      identityref
       |  |  |        |     +-- restoration-type?     identityref
       |  |  |        |     +-- restoration-scheme?   identityref
       |  |  |        |     +-- primary-path-ref* []
       |  |  |        |        +-- (primary-path-exist)?
       |  |  |        |           +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |        |           |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        |           +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |        |              +-- path-request-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        +--:(primary-reverse-path)
       |  |  |        |  +-- primary-reverse-path
       |  |  |        |     +-- (primary-path-exist)?
       |  |  |        |        +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |        |        |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        |        +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |        |           +-- path-request-ref    leafref
       |  |  |        +--:(secondary-reverse-path)
       |  |  |           +-- secondary-reverse-path
       |  |  |              +-- preference?                 uint8
       |  |  |              +-- protection-type?            identityref
       |  |  |              +-- restoration-type?           identityref
       |  |  |              +-- restoration-scheme?         identityref
       |  |  |              +-- primary-reverse-path-ref* []
       |  |  |                 +-- (primary-reverse-path-exist)?
       |  |  |                    +--:(path-ref)
       |  |  |                    |  +-- primary-path-ref    leafref
       |  |  |                    +--:(path-request-ref)
       |  |  |                       +-- path-request-ref    leafref
       |  |  +--:(value)
       |  |     +-- tunnel-name?                    string

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |     +-- path-name?                      string
       |  |     +-- (path-role)?
       |  |     |  +--:(primary-path)
       |  |     |  +--:(secondary-path)
       |  |     |  |  +-- secondary-path!
       |  |     |  |     +-- primary-path-name?   string
       |  |     |  +--:(primary-reverse-path)
       |  |     |  |  +-- primary-reverse-path!
       |  |     |  |     +-- primary-path-name?   string
       |  |     |  +--:(secondary-reverse-path)
       |  |     |     +-- secondary-reverse-path!
       |  |     |        +-- primary-path-name?           string
       |  |     |        +-- primary-reverse-path-name?   string
       |  |     +-- k-requested-paths?              uint8
       |  |     +-- encoding?                       identityref
       |  |     +-- switching-type?                 identityref
       |  |     +-- source?                         te-types:te-node-id
       |  |     +-- destination?                    te-types:te-node-id
       |  |     +-- src-tunnel-tp-id?               binary
       |  |     +-- dst-tunnel-tp-id?               binary
       |  |     +-- bidirectional?                  boolean
       |  |     +-- te-topology-identifier
       |  |        +-- provider-id?   te-global-id
       |  |        +-- client-id?     te-global-id
       |  |        +-- topology-id?   te-topology-id
       |  +-- association-objects
       |  |  +-- association-object* [association-key]
       |  |  |  +-- association-key    string
       |  |  |  +-- type?              identityref
       |  |  |  +-- id?                uint16
       |  |  |  +-- source
       |  |  |     +-- id?     te-gen-node-id
       |  |  |     +-- type?   enumeration
       |  |  +-- association-object-extended* [association-key]
       |  |     +-- association-key    string
       |  |     +-- type?              identityref
       |  |     +-- id?                uint16
       |  |     +-- source
       |  |     |  +-- id?     te-gen-node-id

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |     |  +-- type?   enumeration
       |  |     +-- global-source?     uint32
       |  |     +-- extended-id?       yang:hex-string
       |  +-- optimizations
       |  |  +-- (algorithm)?
       |  |     +--:(metric) {path-optimization-metric}?
       |  |     |  +-- optimization-metric* [metric-type]
       |  |     |  |  +-- metric-type                       identityref
       |  |     |  |  +-- weight?                           uint8
       |  |     |  |  +-- explicit-route-exclude-objects
       |  |     |  |  |  +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index]
       |  |     |  |  |     +-- index                        uint32
       |  |     |  |  |     +-- (type)?
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(numbered-node-hop)
       |  |     |  |  |        |  +-- numbered-node-hop
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- node-id     te-node-id
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(numbered-link-hop)
       |  |     |  |  |        |  +-- numbered-link-hop
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
       |  |     |  |  |        |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(as-number)
       |  |     |  |  |        |  +-- as-number-hop
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(label)
       |  |     |  |  |        |  +-- label-hop
       |  |     |  |  |        |     +-- te-label
       |  |     |  |  |        |        +-- (technology)?
       |  |     |  |  |        |        |  +--:(generic)
       |  |     |  |  |        |        |     +-- generic?

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |     |  |  |        |        |             rt-
   types:generalized-label
       |  |     |  |  |        |        +-- direction?
       |  |     |  |  |        |                te-label-direction
       |  |     |  |  |        +--:(srlg)
       |  |     |  |  |           +-- srlg
       |  |     |  |  |              +-- srlg?   uint32
       |  |     |  |  +-- explicit-route-include-objects
       |  |     |  |     +-- route-object-include-object* [index]
       |  |     |  |        +-- index                        uint32
       |  |     |  |        +-- (type)?
       |  |     |  |           +--:(numbered-node-hop)
       |  |     |  |           |  +-- numbered-node-hop
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- node-id     te-node-id
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |           +--:(numbered-link-hop)
       |  |     |  |           |  +-- numbered-link-hop
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |     |  |           +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
       |  |     |  |           |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |     |  |           +--:(as-number)
       |  |     |  |           |  +-- as-number-hop
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
       |  |     |  |           |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
       |  |     |  |           +--:(label)
       |  |     |  |              +-- label-hop
       |  |     |  |                 +-- te-label
       |  |     |  |                    +-- (technology)?
       |  |     |  |                    |  +--:(generic)
       |  |     |  |                    |     +-- generic?
       |  |     |  |                    |             rt-
   types:generalized-label
       |  |     |  |                    +-- direction?

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |     |  |                            te-label-direction
       |  |     |  +-- tiebreakers
       |  |     |     +-- tiebreaker* [tiebreaker-type]
       |  |     |        +-- tiebreaker-type    identityref
       |  |     +--:(objective-function)
       |  |              {path-optimization-objective-function}?
       |  |        +-- objective-function
       |  |           +-- objective-function-type?   identityref
       |  +-- named-path-constraint?                leafref
       |  |       {te-types:named-path-constraints}?
       |  +-- te-bandwidth
       |  |  +-- (technology)?
       |  |     +--:(generic)
       |  |        +-- generic?   te-bandwidth
       |  +-- link-protection?                      identityref
       |  +-- setup-priority?                       uint8
       |  +-- hold-priority?                        uint8
       |  +-- signaling-type?                       identityref
       |  +-- path-metric-bounds
       |  |  +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type]
       |  |     +-- metric-type    identityref
       |  |     +-- upper-bound?   uint64
       |  +-- path-affinities-values
       |  |  +-- path-affinities-value* [usage]
       |  |     +-- usage    identityref
       |  |     +-- value?   admin-groups
       |  +-- path-affinity-names
       |  |  +-- path-affinity-name* [usage]
       |  |     +-- usage            identityref
       |  |     +-- affinity-name* [name]
       |  |        +-- name    string
       |  +-- path-srlgs-lists
       |  |  +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage]
       |  |     +-- usage     identityref
       |  |     +-- values*   srlg
       |  +-- path-srlgs-names
       |  |  +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage]
       |  |     +-- usage    identityref
       |  |     +-- names*   string

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  +-- disjointness?                         te-path-disjointness
       |  +-- explicit-route-objects-always
       |  |  +-- route-object-exclude-always* [index]
       |  |  |  +-- index                        uint32
       |  |  |  +-- (type)?
       |  |  |     +--:(numbered-node-hop)
       |  |  |     |  +-- numbered-node-hop
       |  |  |     |     +-- node-id     te-node-id
       |  |  |     |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
       |  |  |     +--:(numbered-link-hop)
       |  |  |     |  +-- numbered-link-hop
       |  |  |     |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |  |     |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |  |     |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |  |     +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
       |  |  |     |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
       |  |  |     |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |  |     |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
       |  |  |     |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |  |     |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |  |     +--:(as-number)
       |  |  |     |  +-- as-number-hop
       |  |  |     |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
       |  |  |     |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
       |  |  |     +--:(label)
       |  |  |        +-- label-hop
       |  |  |           +-- te-label
       |  |  |              +-- (technology)?
       |  |  |              |  +--:(generic)
       |  |  |              |     +-- generic?
       |  |  |              |             rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |  |              +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |  +-- route-object-include-exclude* [index]
       |  |     +-- explicit-route-usage?        identityref
       |  |     +-- index                        uint32
       |  |     +-- (type)?
       |  |        +--:(numbered-node-hop)
       |  |        |  +-- numbered-node-hop
       |  |        |     +-- node-id     te-node-id

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |        |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
       |  |        +--:(numbered-link-hop)
       |  |        |  +-- numbered-link-hop
       |  |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |        +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
       |  |        |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
       |  |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
       |  |        |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
       |  |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
       |  |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
       |  |        +--:(as-number)
       |  |        |  +-- as-number-hop
       |  |        |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
       |  |        |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
       |  |        +--:(label)
       |  |        |  +-- label-hop
       |  |        |     +-- te-label
       |  |        |        +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |        |  +--:(generic)
       |  |        |        |     +-- generic?
       |  |        |        |             rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |        |        +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |        +--:(srlg)
       |  |           +-- srlg
       |  |              +-- srlg?   uint32
       |  +-- path-in-segment!
       |  |  +-- label-restrictions
       |  |     +-- label-restriction* [index]
       |  |        +-- restriction?    enumeration
       |  |        +-- index           uint32
       |  |        +-- label-start
       |  |        |  +-- te-label
       |  |        |     +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     |  +--:(generic)
       |  |        |     |     +-- generic?   rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |        |     +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |        +-- label-end

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  |        |  +-- te-label
       |  |        |     +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     |  +--:(generic)
       |  |        |     |     +-- generic?   rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |        |     +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |        +-- label-step
       |  |        |  +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     +--:(generic)
       |  |        |        +-- generic?   int32
       |  |        +-- range-bitmap?   yang:hex-string
       |  +-- path-out-segment!
       |  |  +-- label-restrictions
       |  |     +-- label-restriction* [index]
       |  |        +-- restriction?    enumeration
       |  |        +-- index           uint32
       |  |        +-- label-start
       |  |        |  +-- te-label
       |  |        |     +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     |  +--:(generic)
       |  |        |     |     +-- generic?   rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |        |     +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |        +-- label-end
       |  |        |  +-- te-label
       |  |        |     +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     |  +--:(generic)
       |  |        |     |     +-- generic?   rt-types:generalized-label
       |  |        |     +-- direction?       te-label-direction
       |  |        +-- label-step
       |  |        |  +-- (technology)?
       |  |        |     +--:(generic)
       |  |        |        +-- generic?   int32
       |  |        +-- range-bitmap?   yang:hex-string
       |  +-- requested-metrics* [metric-type]
       |  |  +-- metric-type    identityref
       |  +-- return-srlgs?                         boolean
       |  +-- return-affinities?                    boolean
       |  +-- requested-state!
       |     +-- timer?            uint16
       |     +-- transaction-id?   string

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       +-- tunnel-attributes* [tunnel-name]
       |  +-- tunnel-name               string
       |  +-- encoding?                 identityref
       |  +-- switching-type?           identityref
       |  +-- source?                   te-types:te-node-id
       |  +-- destination?              te-types:te-node-id
       |  +-- src-tunnel-tp-id?         binary
       |  +-- dst-tunnel-tp-id?         binary
       |  +-- bidirectional?            boolean
       |  +-- association-objects
       |  |  +-- association-object* [association-key]
       |  |  |  +-- association-key    string
       |  |  |  +-- type?              identityref
       |  |  |  +-- id?                uint16
       |  |  |  +-- source
       |  |  |     +-- id?     te-gen-node-id
       |  |  |     +-- type?   enumeration
       |  |  +-- association-object-extended* [association-key]
       |  |     +-- association-key    string
       |  |     +-- type?              identityref
       |  |     +-- id?                uint16
       |  |     +-- source
       |  |     |  +-- id?     te-gen-node-id
       |  |     |  +-- type?   enumeration
       |  |     +-- global-source?     uint32
       |  |     +-- extended-id?       yang:hex-string
       |  +-- protection-type?          identityref
       |  +-- restoration-type?         identityref
       |  +-- restoration-scheme?       identityref
       |  +-- te-topology-identifier
       |  |  +-- provider-id?   te-global-id
       |  |  +-- client-id?     te-global-id
       |  |  +-- topology-id?   te-topology-id
       |  +-- te-bandwidth
       |  |  +-- (technology)?
       |  |     +--:(generic)
       |  |        +-- generic?   te-bandwidth
       |  +-- link-protection?          identityref
       |  +-- setup-priority?           uint8

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       |  +-- hold-priority?            uint8
       |  +-- signaling-type?           identityref
       |  +-- hierarchy
       |     +-- dependency-tunnels
       |     |  +-- dependency-tunnel* [name]
       |     |  |  +-- name              -> /te:te/tunnels/tunnel/name
       |     |  |  +-- encoding?         identityref
       |     |  |  +-- switching-type?   identityref
       |     |  +-- dependency-tunnel-attributes* [name]
       |     |     +-- name              leafref
       |     |     +-- encoding?         identityref
       |     |     +-- switching-type?   identityref
       |     +-- hierarchical-link
       |        +-- local-te-node-id?         te-types:te-node-id
       |        +-- local-te-link-tp-id?      te-types:te-tp-id
       |        +-- remote-te-node-id?        te-types:te-node-id
       |        +-- te-topology-identifier
       |           +-- provider-id?   te-global-id
       |           +-- client-id?     te-global-id
       |           +-- topology-id?   te-topology-id
       +-- synchronization* []
          +-- svec
          |  +-- relaxable?           boolean
          |  +-- disjointness?        te-path-disjointness
          |  +-- request-id-number*   uint32
          +-- svec-constraints
          |  +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type]
          |     +-- metric-type    identityref
          |     +-- upper-bound?   uint64
          +-- path-srlgs-lists
          |  +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage]
          |     +-- usage     identityref
          |     +-- values*   srlg
          +-- path-srlgs-names
          |  +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage]
          |     +-- usage    identityref
          |     +-- names*   string
          +-- exclude-objects
          |  +-- excludes* []

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

          |     +-- (type)?
          |        +--:(numbered-node-hop)
          |        |  +-- numbered-node-hop
          |        |     +-- node-id     te-node-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?   te-hop-type
          |        +--:(numbered-link-hop)
          |        |  +-- numbered-link-hop
          |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
          |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
          |        +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
          |        |  +-- unnumbered-link-hop
          |        |     +-- link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |     +-- node-id       te-node-id
          |        |     +-- hop-type?     te-hop-type
          |        |     +-- direction?    te-link-direction
          |        +--:(as-number)
          |        |  +-- as-number-hop
          |        |     +-- as-number    inet:as-number
          |        |     +-- hop-type?    te-hop-type
          |        +--:(label)
          |           +-- label-hop
          |              +-- te-label
          |                 +-- (technology)?
          |                 |  +--:(generic)
          |                 |     +-- generic?
          |                 |             rt-types:generalized-label
          |                 +-- direction?       te-label-direction
          +-- optimizations
             +-- (algorithm)?
                +--:(metric) {te-types:path-optimization-metric}?
                |  +-- optimization-metric* [metric-type]
                |     +-- metric-type    identityref
                |     +-- weight?        uint8
                +--:(objective-function)
                         {te-types:path-optimization-objective-
   function}?
                   +-- objective-function
                      +-- objective-function-type?   identityref

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

     augment /te:tunnels-path-compute/te:output/te:path-compute-result:
       +--ro response* [response-id]
          +--ro response-id                         uint32
          +--ro computed-paths-properties
          |  +--ro computed-path-properties* [k-index]
          |     +--ro k-index            uint8
          |     +--ro path-properties
          |        +--ro path-metric* [metric-type]
          |        |  +--ro metric-type           identityref
          |        |  +--ro accumulative-value?   uint64
          |        +--ro path-affinities-values
          |        |  +--ro path-affinities-value* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage    identityref
          |        |     +--ro value?   admin-groups
          |        +--ro path-affinity-names
          |        |  +--ro path-affinity-name* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage            identityref
          |        |     +--ro affinity-name* [name]
          |        |        +--ro name    string
          |        +--ro path-srlgs-lists
          |        |  +--ro path-srlgs-list* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage     identityref
          |        |     +--ro values*   srlg
          |        +--ro path-srlgs-names
          |        |  +--ro path-srlgs-name* [usage]
          |        |     +--ro usage    identityref
          |        |     +--ro names*   string
          |        +--ro path-route-objects
          |        |  +--ro path-route-object* [index]
          |        |     +--ro index                        uint32
          |        |     +--ro (type)?
          |        |        +--:(numbered-node-hop)
          |        |        |  +--ro numbered-node-hop
          |        |        |     +--ro node-id     te-node-id
          |        |        |     +--ro hop-type?   te-hop-type
          |        |        +--:(numbered-link-hop)
          |        |        |  +--ro numbered-link-hop
          |        |        |     +--ro link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |        |     +--ro hop-type?     te-hop-type

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

          |        |        |     +--ro direction?    te-link-direction
          |        |        +--:(unnumbered-link-hop)
          |        |        |  +--ro unnumbered-link-hop
          |        |        |     +--ro link-tp-id    te-tp-id
          |        |        |     +--ro node-id       te-node-id
          |        |        |     +--ro hop-type?     te-hop-type
          |        |        |     +--ro direction?    te-link-direction
          |        |        +--:(as-number)
          |        |        |  +--ro as-number-hop
          |        |        |     +--ro as-number    inet:as-number
          |        |        |     +--ro hop-type?    te-hop-type
          |        |        +--:(label)
          |        |           +--ro label-hop
          |        |              +--ro te-label
          |        |                 +--ro (technology)?
          |        |                 |  +--:(generic)
          |        |                 |     +--ro generic?
          |        |                 |             rt-types:generalized-
   label
          |        |                 +--ro direction?
          |        |                         te-label-direction
          |        +--ro te-bandwidth
          |        |  +--ro (technology)?
          |        |     +--:(generic)
          |        |        +--ro generic?   te-bandwidth
          |        +--ro disjointness-type?
          |                te-types:te-path-disjointness
          +--ro computed-path-error-infos
          |  +--ro computed-path-error-info* []
          |     +--ro error-description?   string
          |     +--ro error-timestamp?     yang:date-and-time
          |     +--ro error-reason?        identityref
          +--ro tunnel-ref?                         te:tunnel-ref
          +--ro (path-role)?
             +--:(primary)
             |  +--ro primary-path-ref?             leafref
             +--:(primary-reverse)
             |  +--ro primary-reverse-path-ref?     leafref
             +--:(secondary)

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

             |  +--ro secondary-path-ref?           leafref
             +--:(secondary-reverse)
                +--ro secondary-reverse-path-ref?   leafref
     augment /te:tunnels-actions/te:input/te:tunnel-info/te:filter-type:
       +--:(path-compute-transactions)
          +-- path-compute-transaction-id*   string
     augment /te:tunnels-actions/te:output:
       +--ro path-computed-delete-result
          +--ro path-compute-transaction-id*   string

                   Figure 11 - TE path computation tree diagram

6.2. YANG module

   <CODE BEGINS>file "ietf-te-path-computation@2021-09-06.yang"
   module ietf-te-path-computation {
     yang-version 1.1;
     namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-path-computation";
     prefix te-pc;

     import ietf-te {
       prefix te;
       revision-date "2021-02-20";
       reference
         "RFCYYYY: A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels
          and Interfaces";
     }

     /* Note: The RFC Editor will replace YYYY with the number assigned
        to the RFC once draft-ietf-teas-yang-te becomes an RFC.*/

     import ietf-te-types {
       prefix te-types;
       reference
         "RFC8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering.";
     }

     organization
       "Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS)
        Working Group";

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

     contact
       "WG Web:   <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/>
        WG List:  <mailto:teas@ietf.org>

        Editor:   Italo Busi
                  <mailto:italo.busi@huawei.com>

        Editor:   Sergio Belotti
                  <mailto:sergio.belotti@nokia.com>

        Editor:   Victor Lopez
                  <mailto: victor.lopez@nokia.com>

        Editor:   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
                  <mailto:oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com>

        Editor:   Anurag Sharma
                  <mailto:ansha@google.com>

        Editor:   Yan Shi
                  <mailto:shiyan49@chinaunicom.cn>

        Editor:   Ricard Vilalta
                  <mailto:ricard.vilalta@cttc.es>

        Editor:   Karthik Sethuraman
                  <mailto:karthik.sethuraman@necam.com>

        Editor:   Michael Scharf
                  <mailto:michael.scharf@gmail.com>

        Editor:   Daniele Ceccarelli
                  <mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>

       ";
     description
       "This module defines a YANG data model for requesting Traffic
        Engineering (TE) path computation. The YANG model defined in
        this document is based on RPCs augmenting the RPCs defined in

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

        the generic TE module (ietf-te).
        The model fully conforms to the
        Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA).

        Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons
        identified as authors of the code.  All rights reserved.

        Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or
        without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject
        to the license terms contained in, the Simplified BSD License
        set forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions

        Relating to IETF Documents
        (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

        This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see
        the RFC itself for full legal notices.";

     // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
     // this note
     // replace the revision date with the module publication date
     // the format is (year-month-day)

     revision 2021-09-06 {
       description
         "Initial revision";
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: YANG Data Model for requesting Path Computation";
     }

     // RFC Ed.: replace XXXX with actual RFC number and remove
     // this note

     /*
      * Identities
      */

     identity svec-metric-type {
       description

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

         "Base identity for SVEC metric type.";
       reference
         "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
          Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
     }

     identity svec-metric-cumul-te {
       base svec-metric-type;
       description
         "Cumulative TE cost.";
       reference
         "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
          Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
     }

     identity svec-metric-cumul-igp {
       base svec-metric-type;
       description
         "Cumulative IGP cost.";
       reference
         "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
          Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
     }

     identity svec-metric-cumul-hop {
       base svec-metric-type;
       description
         "Cumulative Hop path metric.";
       reference
         "RFC8776: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering.";
     }

     identity svec-metric-aggregate-bandwidth-consumption {
       base svec-metric-type;
       description
         "Aggregate bandwidth consumption.";
       reference
         "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
          Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

     }

     identity svec-metric-load-of-the-most-loaded-link {
       base svec-metric-type;
       description
         "Load of the most loaded link.";
       reference
         "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
          Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
     }

     identity tunnel-action-path-compute-delete {
       base te:tunnel-actions-type;
       description
         "Action type to delete the transient states
          of computed paths, as described in section 3.3.1 of
          RFC XXXX.";
       reference
         "RFC XXXX: YANG Data Model for requesting Path Computation";
     }

     /*
      * Groupings
      */

     grouping protection-restoration-properties {
       description
         "This grouping defines the restoration and protection types
          for a path in the path computation request.";
       leaf protection-type {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:lsp-protection-type;
         }
         default "te-types:lsp-protection-unprotected";
         description
           "LSP protection type.";
       }
       leaf restoration-type {
         type identityref {

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

           base te-types:lsp-restoration-type;
         }
         default "te-types:lsp-restoration-restore-any";
         description
           "LSP restoration type.";
       }
       leaf restoration-scheme {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:restoration-scheme-type;
         }
         default "te-types:restoration-scheme-preconfigured";
         description
           "LSP restoration scheme.";
       }
     } // grouping protection-restoration-properties

     grouping requested-info {
       description
         "This grouping defines the information (e.g., metrics)
          which is requested, in the path computation request, to be
          returned in the path computation response.";
       list requested-metrics {
         key "metric-type";
         description
           "The list of the requested metrics.
            The metrics listed here must be returned in the response.
            Returning other metrics in the response is optional.";
         leaf metric-type {
           type identityref {
             base te-types:path-metric-type;
           }
           description
             "The metric that must be returned in the response";
         }
       }
       leaf return-srlgs {
         type boolean;
         default "false";
         description

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

           "If true, path srlgs must be returned in the response.
            If false, returning path srlgs in the response optional.";
       }
       leaf return-affinities {
         type boolean;
         default "false";
         description
           "If true, path affinities must be returned in the response.
            If false, returning path affinities in the response is
            optional.";
       }
     } // grouping requested-info

     grouping requested-state {
       description
         "Configuration for the transient state used
          to report the computed path";
       container requested-state {
         presence
           "Request temporary reporting of the computed path state";
         description
           "Configures attributes for the temporary reporting of the
            computed path state (e.g., expiration timer).";
         leaf timer {
           type uint16;
           units "minutes";
           default "10";
           description
             "The timeout after which the transient state reporting
             the computed path should be removed.";
         }
         leaf transaction-id {
           type string;
           description
             "The transaction-id associated with this path computation
             to be used for fast deletion of the transient states
             associated with multiple path computations.

             This transaction-id can be used to explicitly delete all

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

             the transient states of all the computed paths associated
             with the same transaction-id.

             When one path associated with a transaction-id is setup,
             the transient states of all the other computed paths
             with the same transaction-id are automatically removed.

             If not specified, the transient state is removed only
             when the timer expires (when the timer is specified)
             or not created at all (stateless path computation,
             when the timer is not specified).";
         }
       }
     } // grouping requested-state

     grouping reported-state {
       description
         "This grouping defines the information, returned in the path
          computation response, reporting the transient state related
          to the computed path";
       leaf tunnel-ref {
         type te:tunnel-ref;
         description
           "
            Reference to the tunnel that reports the transient state
            of the computed path.

            If no transient state is created, this attribute is
            omitted.
           ";
       }
       choice path-role {
         description
           "The transient state of the computed path can be reported
            as a primary, primary-reverse, secondary or
            a secondary-reverse path of a te-tunnel";
         case primary {
           leaf primary-path-ref {
             type leafref {

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/"
                  + "te:tunnel[te:name=current()/../tunnel-ref]/"
                  + "te:primary-paths/te:primary-path/"
                  + "te:name";
             }
             must '../tunnel-ref' {
               description
                 "The primary-path name can only be reported
                  if also the tunnel name is reported.";
             }
             description
               "
                Reference to the primary-path that reports
                the transient state of the computed path.

                If no transient state is created,
                this attribute is omitted.
               ";
           }
         } // case primary
         case primary-reverse {
           leaf primary-reverse-path-ref {
             type leafref {
               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/"
                  + "te:tunnel[te:name=current()/../tunnel-ref]/"
                  + "te:primary-paths/te:primary-path/"
                  + "te:name";
             }
             must '../tunnel-ref' {
               description
                 "The primary-reverse-path name can only be reported
                  if also the tunnel name is reported.";
             }
             description
               "
                Reference to the primary-reverse-path that reports
                the transient state of the computed path.

                If no transient state is created,

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                this attribute is omitted.
               ";
           }
         } // case primary-reverse
         case secondary {
           leaf secondary-path-ref {
             type leafref {
               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/"
                  + "te:tunnel[te:name=current()/../tunnel-ref]/"
                  + "te:secondary-paths/te:secondary-path/"
                  + "te:name";
             }
             must '../tunnel-ref' {
               description
                 "The secondary-path name can only be reported
                  if also the tunnel name is reported.";
             }
             description
               "
                Reference to the secondary-path that reports
                the transient state of the computed path.

                If no transient state is created,
                this attribute is omitted.
               ";
           }
         } // case secondary
         case secondary-reverse {
           leaf secondary-reverse-path-ref {
             type leafref {
               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/"
                  + "te:tunnel[te:name=current()/../tunnel-ref]/"
                  + "te:secondary-reverse-paths/"
                  + "te:secondary-reverse-path/te:name";
             }
             must '../tunnel-ref' {
               description
                 "The secondary-reverse-path name can only be reported
                  if also the tunnel name is reported.";

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

             }
             description
               "
                Reference to the secondary-reverse-path that reports
                the transient state of the computed path.

                If no transient state is created,
                this attribute is omitted.
               ";
           }
         } // case secondary
       } // choice path
     } // grouping reported-state

     grouping synchronization-constraints {
       description
         "Global constraints applicable to synchronized path
          computation requests.";
       container svec-constraints {
         description
           "global svec constraints";
         list path-metric-bound {
           key "metric-type";
           description
             "list of bound metrics";
           leaf metric-type {
             type identityref {
               base svec-metric-type;
             }
             description
               "SVEC metric type.";
             reference
               "RFC5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path
               Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP).";
           }
           leaf upper-bound {
             type uint64;
             description
               "Upper bound on SVEC metric";

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

           }
         }
       }
       uses te-types:generic-path-srlgs;
       container exclude-objects {
         description
           "Resources to be excluded";
         list excludes {
           description
             "List of Explicit Route Objects to always exclude
              from synchronized path computation";
           uses te-types:explicit-route-hop;
         }
       }
     } // grouping synchronization-constraints

     grouping synchronization-optimization {
       description
         "Optimizations applicable to synchronized path
          computation requests.";
       container optimizations {
         description
           "The objective function container that includes attributes
            to impose when computing a synchronized set of paths";
         choice algorithm {
           description
             "Optimizations algorithm.";
           case metric {
             if-feature "te-types:path-optimization-metric";
             list optimization-metric {
               key "metric-type";
               description
                 "svec path metric type";
               leaf metric-type {
                 type identityref {
                   base svec-metric-type;
                 }
                 description
                   "TE path metric type usable for computing a set of

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                   synchronized requests";
               }
               leaf weight {
                 type uint8;
                 description
                   "Metric normalization weight";
               }
             }
           }
           case objective-function {
             if-feature
               "te-types:path-optimization-objective-function";
             container objective-function {
               description
                 "The objective function container that includes
                  attributes to impose when computing a TE path";
               leaf objective-function-type {
                 type identityref {
                   base te-types:objective-function-type;
                 }
                 default "te-types:of-minimize-cost-path";
                 description
                   "Objective function entry";
               }
             }
           }
         }
       }
     } // grouping synchronization-optimization

     grouping synchronization-info {
       description
         "Information for synchronized path computation requests.";
       list synchronization {
         description
           "List of Synchronization VECtors.";
         container svec {
           description
             "Synchronization VECtor";

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

           leaf relaxable {
             type boolean;
             default "true";
             description
               "If this leaf is true, path computation process is
                free to ignore svec content.
                Otherwise, it must take into account this svec.";
           }
           uses te-types:generic-path-disjointness;
           leaf-list request-id-number {
             type uint32;
             description
               "This list reports the set of path computation
                requests that must be synchronized.";
           }
         }
         uses synchronization-constraints;
         uses synchronization-optimization;
       }
     } // grouping synchronization-info

     grouping encoding-and-switching-type {
       description
         "Common grouping to define the LSP encoding and
          switching types";
       leaf encoding {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:lsp-encoding-types;
         }
         default "te-types:lsp-encoding-packet";
         description
           "LSP encoding type.";
         reference
           "RFC3945";
       }
       leaf switching-type {
         type identityref {
           base te-types:switching-capabilities;
         }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

         default "te-types:switching-psc1";
         description
           "LSP switching type.";
         reference
           "RFC3945";
       }
     }

     grouping tunnel-common-attributes {
       description
         "Common grouping to define the TE tunnel parameters";
       uses encoding-and-switching-type;
       leaf source {
         type te-types:te-node-id;
         description
           "TE tunnel source node ID.";
       }
       leaf destination {
         type te-types:te-node-id;
         description
           "TE tunnel destination node identifier.";
       }
       leaf src-tunnel-tp-id {
         type binary;
         description
           "TE tunnel source termination point identifier.";
       }
       leaf dst-tunnel-tp-id {
         type binary;
         description
           "TE tunnel destination termination point identifier.";
       }
       leaf bidirectional {
         type boolean;
         default "false";
         description
           "Indicates a bidirectional co-routed LSP.";
       }
     }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

     /*
      * Augment TE RPCs
      */

     augment "/te:tunnels-path-compute/te:input/te:path-compute-info" {
       description
         "Path Computation RPC input";
       list path-request {
         key "request-id";
         description
           "The list of the requested paths to be computed";
         leaf request-id {
           type uint32;
           mandatory true;
           description
             "Each path computation request is uniquely identified
              within the RPC request by the request-id-number.";
         }
         choice tunnel-attributes {
           default "value";
           description
             "Whether the tunnel attributes are specified by value
              within this path computation request or by reference.
              The reference could be either to an existing te-tunnel
              or to an entry in the tunnel-attributes list";
           case reference {
             container tunnel-reference {
               description
                 "Attributes for a requested path that belongs to
                 either an exiting te-tunnel or to an entry in the
                 tunnel-attributes list.";
               choice tunnel-exist {
                 description
                   "Whether the tunnel reference is to an existing
                   te-tunnel or to an entry in the tunnel-attributes
                   list";
                 case tunnel-ref {
                   leaf tunnel-ref {

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                     type te:tunnel-ref;
                     mandatory true;
                     description
                       "The referenced te-tunnel instance";
                   }
                 } // case tunnel-ref
                 case tunnel-attributes-ref {
                   leaf tunnel-attributes-ref {
                     type leafref {
                       path "/te:tunnels-path-compute/"
                         + "te:path-compute-info/"
                         + "te-pc:tunnel-attributes/te-pc:tunnel-name";
                     }
                     mandatory true;
                     description
                       "The referenced te-tunnel instance";
                   }
                 } // case tunnel-attributes-ref
               } // choice tunnel-exist
               leaf path-name {
                 type string;
                 description
                   "TE path name.";
               }
               choice path-role {
                 mandatory true;
                 description
                   "Whether this path is a primary, or a reverse
                   primary, or a secondary, or a reverse secondary
                   path.";
                 case primary-path {
                   container primary-path {
                     presence "Indicates that the requested path
                               is a primary path";
                     description
                       "TE primary path";
                     uses te:path-preference;
                     uses te:k-requested-paths;
                   } // container primary-path

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                 } // case primary-path
                 case secondary-path {
                   container secondary-path {
                     description
                       "TE secondary path";
                     uses te:path-preference;
                     uses protection-restoration-properties;
                     list primary-path-ref {
                       min-elements 1;
                       description
                         "The list of primary paths that reference
                         this path as a candidate secondary path";
                       choice primary-path-exist {
                         description
                           "Whether the path reference is to an existing
                           te-tunnel path or to another path request";
                         case path-ref {
                           leaf primary-path-ref {
                             type leafref {
                               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel"
                                 + "[te:name=current()/../../../"
                                 + "tunnel-ref]/te:primary-paths/"
                                 + "te:primary-path/te:name";
                             }
                             must '../../../tunnel-ref' {
                               description
                                 "The primary-path can be referenced
                                 if also the tunnel is referenced.";
                             }
                             mandatory true;
                             description
                               "The referenced primary path";
                           }
                         } // case path-ref
                         case path-request-ref {
                           leaf path-request-ref {
                             type leafref {
                               path "/te:tunnels-path-compute/"
                                 + "te:path-compute-info/"

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                                 + "te-pc:path-request/"
                                 + "te-pc:request-id";
                             }
                             mandatory true;
                             description
                               "The referenced primary path request";
                           }
                         } // case path-request-ref
                       } // choice primary-path-exist
                     } // list primary-path-ref
                   } // container secondary-path
                 } // case secondary-path
                 case primary-reverse-path {
                   container primary-reverse-path {
                     description
                       "TE primary reverse path";
                     choice primary-path-exist {
                       description
                         "Whether the path reference to the primary
                         paths for which this path is the reverse-path
                         is to an existing te-tunnel path or to
                         another path request.";
                       case path-ref {
                         leaf primary-path-ref {
                           type leafref {
                             path "/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel[te:name"
                               + "=current()/../../tunnel-ref]/"
                               + "te:primary-paths/te:primary-path/"
                               + "te:name";
                           }
                           must '../../tunnel-ref' {
                             description
                               "The primary-path can be referenced
                               if also the tunnel is referenced.";
                           }
                           mandatory true;
                           description
                             "The referenced primary path";
                         }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                       } // case path-ref
                       case path-request-ref {
                         leaf path-request-ref {
                           type leafref {
                             path "/te:tunnels-path-compute/"
                               + "te:path-compute-info/"
                               + "te-pc:path-request/"
                               + "te-pc:request-id";
                           }
                           mandatory true;
                           description
                             "The referenced primary path request";
                         }
                       } // case path-request-ref
                     } // choice primary-path-exist
                   } // container primary-reverse-path
                 } // case primary-reverse-path
                 case secondary-reverse-path {
                   container secondary-reverse-path {
                     description
                       "TE secondary reverse path";
                     uses te:path-preference;
                     uses protection-restoration-properties;
                     list primary-reverse-path-ref {
                       min-elements 1;
                       description
                         "The list of primary reverse paths that
                         reference this path as a candidate
                         secondary reverse path";
                       choice primary-reverse-path-exist {
                         description
                           "Whether the path reference is to an existing
                           te-tunnel path or to another path request";
                         case path-ref {
                           leaf primary-path-ref {
                             type leafref {
                               path "/te:te/te:tunnels/te:tunnel"
                                 + "[te:name=current()/../../../"
                                 + "tunnel-ref]/te:primary-paths/"

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

                                 + "te:primary-path/te:name";
                             }
                             must '../../../tunnel-ref' {
                               description
                                 "The primary-path can be referenced
                                 if also the tunnel is referenced.";
                             }
                             mandatory true;
                             description
                               "The referenced primary path";
                           }
                         } // case path-ref
                         case path-request-ref {
                           leaf path-request-ref {
                             type leafref {
                               path "/te:tunnels-path-compute/"
                                 + "te:path-compute-info/"
                                 + "te-pc:path-request/"
                                 + "te-pc:request-id";
                             }
                             mandatory true;
                             description
                               "The referenced primary reverse path
                               request";
                           }
                         } // case path-request-ref
                       } // choice primary-reverse-path-exist
                     } // list primary-reverse-path-ref
                   } // container secondary-reverse-path
                 } // case secondary-reverse-path
               } // choice tunnel-path-role
             }
           } // case reference
           case value {
             leaf tunnel-name {
               type string;
               description
                 "TE tunnel name.";
             }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

             leaf path-name {
               type string;
               description
                 "TE path name.";
             }
             choice path-role {
               when 'not (./source) and not (./destination) and
                     not (./src-tunnel-tp-id) and
                     not (./dst-tunnel-tp-id)' {
                 description
                   "When the tunnel attributes are specified by value
                   within this path computation, it is assumed that the
                   requested path will be the only path of a tunnel.

                   If the requested path is a transit segment path, it
                   could be of any type. Otherwise it could only be a
                   primary path.";
               }
               default primary-path;
               description
                 "Indicates whether the requested path is a primary
                 path, a secondary path, a reverse primary path or a
                 reverse secondary path.";
               case primary-path {
                 description
                   "The requested path is a primary path.";
               }
               container secondary-path {
                 presence
                   "Indicates that the requested path is a secondary
                   path.";
                 description
                   "The name of the primary path which the requested
                   primary reverse path belongs to.";
                 leaf primary-path-name {
                   type string;
                   description
                     "TE primary path name.";
                 }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

               } // container secondary-path
               container primary-reverse-path {
                 presence
                   "Indicates that the requested path is a primary
                   reverse path.";
                 description
                   "The name of the primary path which the requested
                   primary reverse path belongs to.";
                 leaf primary-path-name {
                   type string;
                   description
                     "TE primary path name.";
                 }
               } // container primary-reverse-path
               container secondary-reverse-path {
                 presence
                   "Indicates that the requested path is a secondary
                   reverse path.";
                 description
                   "The names of the primary path and of the primary
                   reverse path which the requested secondary reverse
                   path belongs to.";
                 leaf primary-path-name {
                   type string;
                   description
                     "TE primary path name.";
                 }
                 leaf primary-reverse-path-name {
                   type string;
                   description
                     "TE primary reverse path name.";
                 }
               } // container primary-reverse-path
             } // choice path-role
             uses te:k-requested-paths;
             uses tunnel-common-attributes;
             uses te-types:te-topology-identifier;
           } // case value
         } // choice tunnel-attributes

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 81]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

         uses te:path-compute-info;
         uses requested-info;
         uses requested-state;
       }
       list tunnel-attributes {
         key "tunnel-name";
         description
           "Tunnel attributes common to multiple request paths";
         leaf tunnel-name {
           type string;
           description
             "TE tunnel name.";
         }
         uses tunnel-common-attributes;
         uses te:tunnel-associations-properties;
         uses protection-restoration-properties;
         uses te-types:tunnel-constraints;
         uses te:tunnel-hierarchy-properties {
           augment "hierarchy/dependency-tunnels" {
             description
               "Augment with the list of dependency tunnel requests.";
             list dependency-tunnel-attributes {
               key "name";
               description
                 "A tunnel request entry that this tunnel request can
                  potentially depend on.";
               leaf name {
                 type leafref {
                   path "/te:tunnels-path-compute/"
                      + "te:path-compute-info/te-pc:tunnel-attributes/"
                      + "te-pc:tunnel-name";
                 }
                 description
                   "Dependency tunnel request name.";
               }
               uses encoding-and-switching-type;
             }
           }
         }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 82]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       }
       uses synchronization-info;
     } // path-compute rpc input

     augment "/te:tunnels-path-compute/te:output/"
           + "te:path-compute-result" {
       description
         "Path Computation RPC output";
       list response {
         key "response-id";
         config false;
         description
           "response";
         leaf response-id {
           type uint32;
           description
             "The response-id has the same value of the
              corresponding request-id.";
         }
         uses te:path-computation-response;
         uses reported-state;
       }
     } // path-compute rpc output

     augment "/te:tunnels-actions/te:input/te:tunnel-info/"
           + "te:filter-type" {
       description
         "Augment Tunnels Action RPC input filter types";
       case path-compute-transactions {
         when "derived-from-or-self(../te:action-info/te:action, "
            + "'tunnel-action-path-compute-delete')";
         description
           "Path Delete Action RPC";
         leaf-list path-compute-transaction-id {
           type string;
           description
             "The list of the transaction-id values of the
              transient states to be deleted";
         }

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 83]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

       }
     } // path-delete rpc input

     augment "/te:tunnels-actions/te:output" {
       description
         "Augment Tunnels Action RPC output with path delete result";
       container path-computed-delete-result {
         description
           "Path Delete RPC output";
         leaf-list path-compute-transaction-id {
           type string;
           description
             "The list of the transaction-id values of the
              transient states that have been successfully deleted";
         }
       }
     } // path-delete rpc output
   }
   <CODE ENDS>

                    Figure 12 - TE path computation YANG module

7. Security Considerations

   This document describes use cases of requesting Path Computation
   using YANG data models, which could be used at the ABNO Control
   Interface [RFC7491] and/or between controllers in ACTN [RFC8453]. As
   such, it does not introduce any new security considerations compared
   to the ones related to YANG specification, ABNO specification and
   ACTN Framework defined in [RFC7950], [RFC7491] and [RFC8453].

   The YANG module defined in this draft is designed to be accessed via
   the NETCONF protocol [RFC6241] or RESTCONF protocol [RFC8040]. The
   lowest NETCONF layer is the secure transport layer, and the
   mandatory-to-implement secure transport is Secure Shell (SSH)
   [RFC6242]. The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the mandatory-to-
   implement secure transport is TLS [RFC8446].

   This document also defines common data types using the YANG data
   modeling language. The definitions themselves have no security impact
   on the Internet, but the usage of these definitions in concrete YANG

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 84]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   modules might have. The security considerations spelled out in the
   YANG specification [RFC7950] apply for this document as well.

   The NETCONF access control model [RFC8341] provides the means to
   restrict access for particular NETCONF or RESTCONF users to a
   preconfigured subset of all available NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol
   operations and content.

   Note - The security analysis of each leaf is for further study.

8. IANA Considerations

   This document registers the following URIs in the "ns" subregistry
   within the "IETF XML registry" [RFC3688].

      URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-path-computation
      Registrant Contact:  The IESG.
      XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

   This document registers a YANG module in the "YANG Module Names"
   registry [RFC7950].

      name:      ietf-te-path-computation
      namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-path-computation
      prefix:    te-pc
      reference: this document

9. References

9.1. Normative References

   [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", RFC 3688, January
             2004.

   [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
             Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, DOI
             10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc3945>.

   [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Le Roux, JL. et al., "Path Computation
             Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
             March 2009.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 85]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   [RFC5441] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Zhang, R., Bitar, N., and JL. Le Roux,
             "A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC)
             Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain
             Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths", RFC 5441,
             DOI 10.17487/RFC5441, April 2009, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc5441>.

   [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL. et al., "Encoding of Objective Functions in
             the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
             (PCEP)", RFC 5541, June 2009.

   [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
             and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
             (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, June 2011.

   [RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure
             Shell (SSH)", RFC 6242, June 2011.

   [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 6991, July
             2013.

   [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
             Protocol", RFC 8040, January 2017.

   [RFC8341] Bierman, A., and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration
             Access Control Model", RFC 8341, March 2018.

   [RFC7926] Farrel, A. et al., "Problem Statement and Architecture for
             Information Exchange Between Interconnected Traffic
             Engineered Networks", RFC 7926, July 2016.

   [RFC7950] Bjorklund, M., "The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language", RFC
             7950, August 2016.

   [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
             Protocol", RFC 8040, January 2017.

   [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP
             215, RFC 8340, March 2018.

   [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
             Version 1.3", RFC 8446, August 2018.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 86]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   [RFC8776] Saad, T., Gandhi, R., Liu, X., Beeram, V., and I. Bryskin,
             "Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering", RFC8776,
             June 2020.

   [RFC8795] Liu, X. et al., " Liu, X. et al., "YANG Data Model for
             Traffic Engineering (TE) Topologies", RFC8795, August 2020.

   [TE-TUNNEL] Saad, T. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Traffic
             Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces", draft-ietf-teas-yang-
             te, work in progress.

9.2. Informative References

   [RFC4655] Farrel, A. et al., "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
             Architecture", RFC 4655, August 2006.

   [RFC6805] King, D., Ed. and A. Farrel, Ed., "The Application of the
             Path Computation Element Architecture to the Determination
             of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS", RFC 6805, DOI
             10.17487/RFC6805, November 2012, <https://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6805>.

   [RFC7139] Zhang, F. et al., "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control
             of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139,
             March 2014.

   [RFC7446] Lee, Y. et al., "Routing and Wavelength Assignment
             Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical
             Networks", RFC 7446, February 2015.

   [RFC7491] Farrel, A., King, D., "A PCE-Based Architecture for
             Application-Based Network Operations", RFC 7491, March
             2015.

   [RFC8233] Dhody, D. et al., "Extensions to the Path Computation
             Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-
             Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)", RFC 8233, September
             2017

   [RFC8342] Bjorklund,M. et al. "Network Management Datastore
             Architecture (NMDA)", RFC 8342, March 2018

   [RFC8453] Ceccarelli, D., Lee, Y. et al., "Framework for Abstraction
             and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC8453, August 2018.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 87]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   [RFC8454] Lee, Y. et al., "Information Model for Abstraction and
             Control of TE Networks (ACTN)", RFC8454, September 2018.

   [OTN-TOPO] Zheng, H. et al., "A YANG Data Model for Optical Transport
             Network Topology", draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang, work in
             progress.

   [ITU-T G.709-2016]   ITU-T Recommendation G.709 (06/16), "Interface
             for the optical transport network", June 2016.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 88]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

Appendix A. Examples of dimensioning the "detailed connectivity matrix"

   In the following table, a list of the possible constraints,
   associated with their potential cardinality, is reported.

   The maximum number of potential connections to be computed and
   reported is, in first approximation, the multiplication of all of
   them.

   Constraint  Cardinality
   ----------  -------------------------------------------------------

   End points N(N-1)/2 if connections are bidirectional (OTN and WDM),
              N(N-1) for unidirectional connections.

   Bandwidth  In WDM networks, bandwidth values are expressed in GHz.

              On fixed-grid WDM networks, the central frequencies are
              on a 50GHz grid and the channel width of the transmitters
              are typically 50GHz such that each central frequency can
              be used, i.e., adjacent channels can be placed next to
              each other in terms of central frequencies.

              On flex-grid WDM networks, the central frequencies are on
              a 6.25GHz grid and the channel width of the transmitters
              can be multiples of 12.5GHz.

              For fixed-grid WDM networks typically there is only one
              possible bandwidth value (i.e., 50GHz) while for flex-
              grid WDM networks typically there are 4 possible
              bandwidth values (e.g., 37.5GHz, 50GHz, 62.5GHz, 75GHz).

              In OTN (ODU) networks, bandwidth values are expressed as
              pairs of ODU type and, in case of ODUflex, ODU rate in
              bytes/sec as described in section 5 of [RFC7139].

              For "fixed" ODUk types, 6 possible bandwidth values are
              possible (i.e., ODU0, ODU1, ODU2, ODU2e, ODU3, ODU4).

              For ODUflex(GFP), up to 80 different bandwidth values can
              be specified, as defined in Table 7-8 of [ITU-T G.709-
              2016].

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 89]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

              For other ODUflex types, like ODUflex(CBR), the number of
              possible bandwidth values depends on the rates of the
              clients that could be mapped over these ODUflex types, as
              shown in Table 7.2 of [ITU-T G.709-2016], which in theory
              could be a countinuum of values. However, since different
              ODUflex bandwidths that use the same number of TSs on
              each link along the path are equivalent for path
              computation purposes, up to 120 different bandwidth
              ranges can be specified.

              Ideas to reduce the number of ODUflex bandwidth values in
              the detailed connectivity matrix, to less than 100, are
              for further study.

              Bandwidth specification for ODUCn is currently for
              further study but it is expected that other bandwidth
              values can be specified as integer multiples of 100Gb/s.

              In IP we have bandwidth values in bytes/sec. In
              principle, this is a countinuum of values, but in
              practice we can identify a set of bandwidth ranges, where
              any bandwidth value inside the same range produces the
              same path.
              The number of such ranges is the cardinality, which
              depends on the topology, available bandwidth and status
              of the network. Simulations (Note: reference paper
              submitted for publication) show that values for medium
              size topologies (around 50-150 nodes) are in the range 4-
              7 (5 on average) for each end points couple.

   Metrics    IGP, TE and hop number are the basic objective metrics
              defined so far. There are also the 2 objective functions
              defined in [RFC5541]: Minimum Load Path (MLP) and Maximum
              Residual Bandwidth Path (MBP). Assuming that one only
              metric or objective function can be optimized at once,
              the total cardinality here is 5.

              With [RFC8233], a number of additional metrics are
              defined, including Path Delay metric, Path Delay
              Variation metric and Path Loss metric, both for point-to-
              point and point-to-multipoint paths. This increases the
              cardinality to 8.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 90]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Bounds     Each metric can be associated with a bound in order to
              find a path having a total value of that metric lower
              than the given bound. This has a potentially very high
              cardinality (as any value for the bound is allowed). In
              practice there is a maximum value of the bound (the one
              with the maximum value of the associated metric) which
              results always in the same path, and a range approach
              like for bandwidth in IP should produce also in this case
              the cardinality. Assuming to have a cardinality similar
              to the one of the bandwidth (let say 5 on average) we
              should have 6 (IGP, TE, hop, path delay, path delay
              variation and path loss; we don't consider here the two
              objective functions of [RFC5541] as they are conceived
              only for optimization)*5 = 30 cardinality.

   Technology
   constraints For further study

   Priority   We have 8 values for set-up priority, which is used in
              path computation to route a path using free resources
              and, where no free resources are available, resources
              used by LSPs having a lower holding priority.

   Local prot It's possible to ask for a local protected service, where
              all the links used by the path are protected with fast
              reroute (this is only for IP networks, but line
              protection schemas are available on the other
              technologies as well). This adds an alternative path
              computation, so the cardinality of this constraint is 2.

   Administrative
   Colors     Administrative colors (aka affinities) are typically
              assigned to links but when topology abstraction is used
              affinity information can also appear in the detailed
              connectivity matrix.

              There are 32 bits available for the affinities. Links can
              be tagged with any combination of these bits, and path
              computation can be constrained to include or exclude any
              or all of them. The relevant cardinality is 3 (include-
              any, exclude-any, include-all) times 2^32 possible
              values. However, the number of possible values used in
              real networks is quite small.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 91]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Included Resources

              A path computation request can be associated to an
              ordered set of network resources (links, nodes) to be
              included along the computed path. This constraint would
              have a huge cardinality as in principle any combination
              of network resources is possible. However, as far as the
              client doesn't know details about the internal topology
              of the domain, it shouldn't include this type of
              constraint at all (see more details below).

   Excluded Resources

               A path computation request can be associated to a set of
               network resources (links, nodes, SRLGs) to be excluded
               from the computed path. Like for included resources, this
               constraint has a potentially very high cardinality, but,
               once again, it can't be actually used by the client, if
               it's not aware of the domain topology (see more details
               below).
   As discussed above, the client can specify include or exclude
   resources depending on the abstract topology information that the
   underlying controller exposes:

   o  In case the underlying controller exposes the entire domain as a
      single abstract TE node with his own external terminations and
      detailed connectivity matrix (whose size we are estimating), no
      other topological details are available, therefore the size of the
      detailed connectivity matrix only depends on the combination of
      the constraints that the client can use in a path computation
      request to its underlying controller. These constraints cannot
      refer to any details of the internal topology of the domain, as
      those details are not known to the client and so they do not
      impact size of the detailed connectivity matrix exported.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 92]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   o  Instead in case the underlying controller exposes a topology
      including more than one abstract TE nodes and TE links, and their
      attributes (e.g. SRLGs, affinities for the links), the client
      knows these details and therefore could compute a path across the
      domain referring to them in the constraints. The detailed
      connectivity matrixes, whose size need to be estimated here, are
      the ones relevant to the abstract TE nodes exported to the client.
      These detailed connectivity matrixes and therefore theirs sizes,
      while cannot depend on the other abstract TE nodes and TE links,
      which are external to the given abstract node, could depend to
      SRLGs (and other attributes, like affinities) which could be
      present also in the portion of the topology represented by the
      abstract nodes, and therefore contribute to the size of the
      related detailed connectivity matrix.

   We also don't consider here the possibility to ask for more than one
   path in diversity or for point-to-multi-point paths, which are for
   further study.

   Considering for example an IP domain without considering SRLG and
   affinities, we have an estimated number of paths depending on these
   estimated cardinalities:

   Endpoints = N*(N-1), Bandwidth = 5, Metrics = 6, Bounds = 20,
   Priority = 8, Local prot = 2

   The number of paths to be pre-computed by each IP domain is therefore
   24960 * N(N-1) where N is the number of domain access points.

   This means that with just 4 access points we have nearly 300000 paths
   to compute, advertise and maintain (if a change happens in the
   domain, due to a fault, or just the deployment of new traffic, a
   substantial number of paths need to be recomputed and the relevant
   changes advertised to the client).

   This seems quite challenging. In fact, if we assume a mean length of
   1K for the json describing a path (a quite conservative estimate),
   reporting 300000 paths means transferring and then parsing more than
   300 Mbytes for each domain. If we assume that 20% (to be checked) of
   this paths change when a new deployment of traffic occurs, we have 60
   Mbytes of transfer for each domain traversed by a new end-to-end
   path. If a network has, let say, 20 domains (we want to estimate the
   load for a non-trivial domain set-up) in the beginning a total
   initial transfer of 6Gigs is needed, and eventually, assuming 4-5

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 93]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   domains are involved in mean during a path deployment we could have
   240-300 Mbytes of changes advertised to the client.

   Further bare-bone solutions can be investigated, removing some more
   options, if this is considered not acceptable; in conclusion, it
   seems that an approach based only on the information provided by the
   detailed connectivity matrix is hardly feasible, and could be
   applicable only to small networks with a limited meshing degree
   between domains and renouncing to a number of path computation
   features.

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 94]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Igor Bryskin and Xian Zhang for
   participating in the initial discussions that have triggered this
   work and providing valuable insights.

   The authors would like to thank the authors of the TE tunnel YANG
   data model [TE-TUNNEL], in particular Igor Bryskin, Vishnu Pavan
   Beeram, Tarek Saad and Xufeng Liu, for their inputs to the
   discussions and support in having consistency between the Path
   Computation and TE tunnel YANG data models.

   The authors would like to thank Adrian Farrel, Dhruv Dhody, Igor
   Bryskin, Julien Meuric and Lou Berger for their valuable input to the
   discussions that has clarified that the path being set up is not
   necessarily the same as the path that has been previously computed
   and, in particular to Dhruv Dhody, for his suggestion to describe the
   need for a path verification phase to check that the actual path
   being set up meets the required end-to-end metrics and constraints.

   The authors would like to thank Aihua Guo, Lou Berger, Shaolong Gan,
   Martin Bjorklund and Tom Petch for their useful comments on how to
   define XPath statements in YANG RPCs.

   The authors would like to thank Haomian Zheng, Yanlei Zheng, Tom
   Petch, Aihua Guo and Martin Bjorklund for their review and valuable
   comments to this document.

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.

Contributors

   Dieter Beller
   Nokia
   Email: dieter.beller@nokia.com

   Gianmarco Bruno
   Ericsson
   Email: gianmarco.bruno@ericsson.com

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 95]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Francesco Lazzeri
   Ericsson
   Email: francesco.lazzeri@ericsson.com

   Young Lee
   Samsung Electronics
   Email: younglee.tx@gmail.com

   Carlo Perocchio
   Ericsson
   Email: carlo.perocchio@ericsson.com

   Olivier Dugeon
   Orange Labs
   Email: olivier.dugeon@orange.com

   Julien Meuric
   Orange Labs
   Email: julien.meuric@orange.com

Authors' Addresses

   Italo Busi (Editor)
   Huawei
   Email: italo.busi@huawei.com

   Sergio Belotti (Editor)
   Nokia
   Email: sergio.belotti@nokia.com

   Victor Lopez
   Nokia
   Email: victor.lopez@nokia.com

   Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
   Telefonica
   Email: oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 96]
Internet-Draft        Yang for Path Computation          September 2021

   Anurag Sharma
   Google
   Email: ansha@google.com

   Yan Shi
   China Unicom
   Email: shiyan49@chinaunicom.cn

   Ricard Vilalta
   CTTC
   Email: ricard.vilalta@cttc.es

   Karthik Sethuraman
   NEC
   Email: karthik.sethuraman@necam.com

   Michael Scharf
   Nokia
   Email: michael.scharf@gmail.com

   Daniele Ceccarelli
   Ericsson
   Email: daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com

Busi, Belotti, et al.   Expires March 6, 2022                 [Page 97]