Skip to main content

PCEP for Enhanced DetNet
draft-zhang-pce-enhanced-detnet-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Li Zhang , Xuesong Geng , Tianran Zhou
Last updated 2022-07-11
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-zhang-pce-enhanced-detnet-00
Network Working Group                                           L. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                                   X. Geng
Intended status: Experimental                                    T. Zhou
Expires: 12 January 2023                                          Huawei
                                                            11 July 2022

                        PCEP for Enhanced DetNet
                   draft-zhang-pce-enhanced-detnet-00

Abstract

   PCEP is used to provide a communication between a PCC and a PCE.
   This document defines the extensions to PCEP to support the bounded-
   latency path computation.  Specifically, two new objects and three
   new TLVs are defined for the transmission of bounded latency
   information between PCC and PCE to guarantee the bounded latency
   transmission in control plane.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 12 January 2023.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Object Formats  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Open Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       3.1.1.  Bounded Latency Capability TLV  . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  RP Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  BLI Type TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Traffic Model Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  BLI Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.4.1.  BLI List TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.4.2.  Shared BLI TLV  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  SR Policy for BLI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  New TLV Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  New Object  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Introduction

   [RFC8665]provides the overall architecture for Deterministic
   Networking (DetNet), which provides the capability to carry specified
   unicast or multicast data flows with extremely low data loss rates
   and bounded end-to-end latency within a network domain.  Based on
   this, [draft-finn-detnet-bounded-latency] proposed a timing model for
   sources, destinations, and DetNet transit nodes.  Using the model, it
   provides a methodology to compute end-to-end latency and backlog
   bounds for various queuing methods.

   [RFC5440] describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) for
   communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path
   Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs.  PCEP defines the
   interaction and data format of path calculation requests and path
   computation replies between PCC and PCE.[RFC8231]specifies extension
   to PCEP to enable stateful control of LSPs within and across PCEP

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   sessions in compliance
   with[RFC4657].[I-D.yzz-detnet-enhanced-data-plane] enhances the
   DetNet data plane by introducing Bounded Latency Information (BLI)
   which facilitates DetNet transit nodes to guarantee the bounded
   latency transmission in data plane.  Based on
   that,[I-D.geng-spring-sr-enhanced-detnet] defines how to leverage
   Segment Routing (SR) and Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) to
   implement bounded latency.

   When a PCE is used to compute paths using PCEP, it is important that
   the PCE understands the bounded latency requirement and the head end
   of the path also need to understands the bounded latency information
   associated with the candidate path.

   This document defines the extensions to PCEP to support the bounded-
   latency path computation.  Specifically, two new objects and three
   new TLVs are defined for the transmission of bounded latency
   information between PCC and PCE to guarantee the bounded latency
   transmission in control plane.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described
   in[RFC2119].

3.  Object Formats

3.1.  Open Object

   [RFC5440]defines the Open object in open message used to specify the
   PCEP version, Keepalive frequency, DeadTimer, PCEP session ID, and
   other communication parameters.  The Open object may also contain a
   set of TLVs used to convey various session characteristics.

3.1.1.  Bounded Latency Capability TLV

   During the PCEP initialization phase, PCEP speakers SHOULD advertise
   their support of Bounded Latency features, for this reason this
   document defines the Bounded Latency capability TLV.

   A PCEP speaker includes the Bounded Latency capability TLV in the
   Open object to advertise its support for Bounded Latency features.
   The format of the Bounded Latency capability TLV is formatted as
   follows:

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Type=TBD1         |            Length=4           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type Flag           |          Format Flag          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Type: To be assigned by IANA.

   Length: 16 bits value to indicate the length of the value portion in
   bytes.

   Type-Flag: 16 bits of flags to indicate which kind of BLI Type the
   speaker supports.  A new registry "Bounded Latency Type Flags" is
   expected to be created.  Table 1 shows the assignment of Bounded
   Latency Type Flags.  The speaker sets the defined bit in flag to
   indicate that it supports this Type of BLI.  The undefined bits MUST
   be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Format-Flag: 16 bits of flags to indicate which kind of BLI Format
   the speaker supports.  A new registry "Bounded Latency Format Flags"
   is expected to be created.  Table 2 shows the assignment of Bounded
   Latency Format Flags.  The speaker sets the defined bit in flag to
   indicate that it supports this Format of BLI.  The undefined bits
   MUST be set to zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
   receiver.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |       Bit      |                BLI Type               |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        0       |               Reserved                |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        1       |           Time resource ID            |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        2       |               Priority                |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        3       |        End-to-end delay budget        |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        4       |           Local delay budget          |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        5       |                Reserved               |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        6       |                Reserved               |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        7       |   End-to-end delay variation budget   |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        8       |      Local delay variation budget     |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |      9-15      |               undefined               |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+

   Table1: Bounded Latency Type flag and the corresponding BLI type

   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |     Bit      |       BLI Format        |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      0       |       Reserved          |
   +------- ------+-------------------------+
   |      1       | 32-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      2       | 16-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      3       |  8-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |    4-15      |       undefined         |
   +--------------+-------------------------+

   Table2: Bounded Latency Format flag and the corresponding BLI format

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

3.2.  RP Object

   The RP (Request Parameters) object is defined in[RFC5440], used to
   specify various characteristics of the path computation request and
   MUST be carried within each PCReq and PCRep messages.  The format of
   RP object is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          Flags                    |O|B|R| Pri |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Request-ID-number                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                      Optional TLVs                          //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The detail information about the fields in the RP object is defined
   in section 7.4 of[RFC5440].

3.2.1.  BLI Type TLV

   In order to specify the type and format of the BLI associated with
   candidate path, this document defines a new TLV named BLI type TLV.
   The BLI type TLV is formatted as follow:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Type = TBD2          |            Length=4           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    BLI Type   |  BLI  Format  |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Length: 16 bits value to indicate the length of the value portion in
   bytes.  The value of this field is 4.

   BLI Type: 8 bits value to indicate the type of BLI that PCC desires.
   Table 3 shows the values and their corresponding BLI types.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   | BLI Type Value |      Bounded Latency Information      |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        0       |               Reserved                |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        1       |           Time resource ID            |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        2       |               Priority                |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        3       |   End-to-end delay variation budget   |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        4       |           Local delay budget          |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        5       |     End-to-end queue delay budget     |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+
   |        6       |        Local queue delay budget       |
   +----------------+---------------------------------------+

   Table3: BLI Type value and their corresponding types

   BLI Format: 8 bits value to indicate the format of BLI that PCC
   desires.  Table 4 shows the values and their corresponding BLI
   formats.

   +--------------+-------------------------+
   | Format Value |          Format         |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      1       | 32-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      2       | 16-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+
   |      3       |  8-bit unsigned Integer |
   +--------------+-------------------------+

   Table4: BLI Format and their corresponding formats

   When PCC needs to request a bounded-latency path, it MUST include the
   BLI Type TLV in the RP object in PCReq message.  If a PCC includes an
   BLI Type TLV on a path calculation request, then the PCE will reply
   the specific type of BLI associated with computed path.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

3.3.  Traffic Model Object

   The Traffic Model Object is optional in the PCReq message and used to
   specify the traffic model for the bounded-latency path computation.
   The traffic model object contains a set of fields used to specify the
   traffic features.[RFC9016] defines the traffic specification of the
   DetNet flow, which includes a set of attributes to specify how the
   DetNet Ingress transmits packets for the DetNet flow.  Based on that,
   this document proposes the Traffic Model Object to describe the
   DetNet flow for bounded-latency path computation.

   Traffic Model Object-Class is TBD3;

   Traffic Model Object-Type is 1.

   The format of the Traffic Model Object is shown in below:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Traffic ID          |            Flags              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     MinPacketsPerInterval     |     MaxPacketsPerInterval     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         MinPayloadSize        |       MaxPayloadSize          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Interval                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         MinBandwidth                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          MaxLatency                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      MaxLatencyVariation                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                       Optional TLVs                         //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where:

   Traffic ID: The only identification of the specify traffic in PCC.
   When the PCC need to request a path computation for a traffic, it
   MUST assign a 16-bit traffic identifier to specify the traffic in
   local.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   Flags: 16 bits of flags.  A new registry "Traffic Model Flags" is
   expected to be created.  At the writing time, all flags are unused
   and undefined.

   MinPacketsPerInterval: the minimum number of packets that the Ingress
   will transmit in one Interval.

   MaxPacketsPerInterval: the maximum number of packets that the Ingress
   will transmit in one Interval.

   MinPayloadSize: the minimum payload size that the Ingress will
   transmit.

   MaxPayloadSize: the maximum payload size that the Ingress will
   transmit.

   Interval: the period of time in which the traffic specification is
   specified.

   MinBandwith: the minimum bandwidth that has to be guaranteed for the
   DetNet traffic.

   MaxLatency: the end-to-end maximum latency for a single packet of the
   DetNet traffic.

   MaxLatencyVariation: the difference between the minimum and the
   maximum end-to-end, one-way latency.

   The Traffic Model object body has a variable length and may contain
   TLVs for the additional attributes of the traffic model.  At the
   writing time there is no TLV defined for Traffic Mode Object.

3.4.  BLI Object

   In order to support the bounded-latency path computation, a new kind
   of object named BLI object is defined in this document to indicate
   the bounded latency information of a candidate path.

   The BLI object is optionally carried within a PCRep message so as to
   indicate the requirement and resource allocation for the candidate
   path.  When a PCC request a bounded-latency path computation and the
   PCE find out a path satisfying the set of constraints, the PCE MUST
   include the BLI object in PCRep message.

   BLI Object-Class is TBD4.

   BLI Object-Type is 1.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   The format of BLI object is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   //                       Optional TLVs                         //
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The BLI object body has a variable length and may contain TLVs for
   the different kinds of BLI.  This document defines two kinds of BLI
   TLV for different scenarios.

3.4.1.  BLI List TLV

   When all of the nodes in the Explicit Route Object (ERO)[RFC5440]
   request different BLI to guarantee bounded latency, a BLI list TLV is
   defined.

   The BLI list sub-TLV is formatted as follows.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Type=TBD5          |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        BLI List [m]                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                             ...                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        BLI List [1]                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Length: 16 bits length value to indicate the length of BLI list in
   octet.

   BLI List [1... m]: 32 bits length bounded latency information,
   representing the nth BLI in the BLI list.

   The BLI in the BLI List corresponds to the node in the ERO object one
   by one.  The length of the BLI List depends on the number of nodes in
   the ERO object.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

3.4.2.  Shared BLI TLV

   When all of the nodes in the ERO indicated by the sub-object list
   request BLI to guarantee bounded latency with the same BLI value, the
   Shared BLI TLV is defined.

   The Shared BLI TLV is defined as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           Type=TBD6           |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                              BLI                              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Where:

   Type: to be assigned by IANA.

   Length: 16 bits value to indicate the length of BLI in octet.

   BLI: 32 bits value of Bounded Latency Information to guarantee the
   bounded latency.

4.  SR Policy for BLI

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp] proposes extension to PCEP
   to support association among candidate paths of a given SR policy.
   For the bounded latency path, the additional bounded latency
   information associated with the candidate path SHOULD be carried with
   SR Policy.  Therefore, the additional BLI TLV SHOULD be defined to
   indicate the bounded-latency requirement and resources allocation for
   the nodes along the candidate path.  For different scenario,
   different BLI TLV need to be carried by SR policy.

   When all of the nodes/adjacencies in the explicit path indicated by
   the segment list request different BLI to guarantee bounded latency,
   a BLI list TLV is need to be carried by SR Policy.  The BLI list TLV
   is defined in section 3.4.1.

   When all of the nodes/adjacencies in the explicit path indicated by
   the segment list request BLI to guarantee bounded latency with the
   same BLI value, a Per-segment BLI TLV is need to be carried by SR
   Policy.  The Per-segment BLI TLV is defined in section 3.4.2.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines four new TLVs and two new Object.

5.1.  New TLV Type

  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       Value     |               Name              |     Reference  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD1      | Bounded-Latency Capability TLV  | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD2      |          BLI Type TLV           | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD5      |          BLI list TLV           | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD6      |       Shared BLI TLV       | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+

5.2.  New Object

   IANA is requested to make the assignment from the "PCEP Object" sub-
   registry as follows:

  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       Value     |               Name              |     Reference  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD3      |        Traffic Model Object     | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+
  |       TBD4      |           BLI Object            | This document  |
  +-----------------+---------------------------------+----------------+

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD

7.  Acknowledgements

8.  Normative References

   [I-D.geng-spring-sr-enhanced-detnet]
              Geng, X., Li, Z., and T. Zhou, "Segment Routing for
              Enhanced DetNet", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              geng-spring-sr-enhanced-detnet-00, 11 July 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-geng-spring-sr-
              enhanced-detnet-00.txt>.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp]
              Koldychev, M., Sivabalan, S., Barth, C., Peng, S., and H.
              Bidgoli, "PCEP extension to support Segment Routing Policy
              Candidate Paths", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-07, 21 April 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-
              routing-policy-cp-07.txt>.

   [I-D.yzz-detnet-enhanced-data-plane]
              Yang, F., Zhou, T., and L. Zhang, "DetNet Enhanced Data
              Plane", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-yzz-
              detnet-enhanced-data-plane-00, 10 July 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-yzz-detnet-
              enhanced-data-plane-00.txt>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC4657]  Ash, J., Ed. and J.L. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic
              Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September
              2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4657>.

   [RFC5440]  Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
              Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.

   [RFC8231]  Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path
              Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)
              Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8231>.

   [RFC8665]  Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
              H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.

   [RFC9016]  Varga, B., Farkas, J., Cummings, R., Jiang, Y., and D.
              Fedyk, "Flow and Service Information Model for
              Deterministic Networking (DetNet)", RFC 9016,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9016, March 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9016>.

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft              Abbreviated-Title                  July 2022

Authors' Addresses

   Li Zhang
   Huawei
   Email: zhangli344@huawei.com

   Xuesong Geng
   Huawei
   Email: gengxuesong@huawei.com

   Tianran Zhou
   Huawei
   Email: zhoutianran@huawei.com

Zhang, et al.            Expires 12 January 2023               [Page 14]