<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc [
  <!ENTITY nbsp    "&#160;">
  <!ENTITY zwsp   "&#8203;">
  <!ENTITY nbhy   "&#8209;">
  <!ENTITY wj     "&#8288;">
]>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rfc2629.xslt" ?>
<!-- generated by https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc version 1.7.30 (Ruby 3.2.3) -->
<rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-07" category="std" consensus="true" submissionType="IETF" tocInclude="true" sortRefs="true" symRefs="true" version="3">
  <!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.31.0 -->
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency ">PCEP Extension for Bounded Latency</title>
    <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-xiong-pce-detnet-bounded-latency-07"/>
    <author initials="Q." surname="Xiong" fullname="Quan Xiong">
      <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
      <address>
        <email>xiong.quan@zte.com.cn</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="P." surname="Liu" fullname="Peng Liu">
      <organization>China Mobile</organization>
      <address>
        <email>liupengyjy@chinamobile.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <author initials="R." surname="Gandhi" fullname="Rakesh Gandhi">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <email>rgandhi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date year="2026" month="January" day="30"/>
    <workgroup>idr</workgroup>
    <abstract>
      <?line 49?>

<t>In certain networks, such as Deterministic Networking (DetNet), it is required to consider the bounded latency
for path selection. This document describes the extensions for Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) to carry the bounded latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths for end-to-end path computation
in deterministic services.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <?line 56?>

<section anchor="introduction">
      <name>Introduction</name>
      <t><xref target="RFC5440"/> describes the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) which is used between a Path Computation Element
 (PCE) and a Path Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to enable computation of Multi-protocol Label Switching 
 (MPLS) for Traffic Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP). PCEP Extensions for the Stateful PCE Model <xref target="RFC8231"/> 
 describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable active control of MPLS-TE and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) tunnels.<br/>
 As depicted in <xref target="RFC4655"/>, a PCE MUST be able to compute the path of a TE LSP by operating on the TED and considering 
 bandwidth and other constraints applicable to the TE LSP service request.  The constraint parameters are provided such 
 as metric, bandwidth, delay, affinity, etc. However these parameters did not take into account the bounded latency
 requirements.</t>
      <t>According to <xref target="RFC8655"/>}, Deterministic Networking (DetNet) operates at the IP layer and delivers service which 
provides extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. The bounded latency indicates 
the minimum and maximum end-to-end latency from source to destination and bounded jitter (packet delay variation). 
<xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements"/> has described the enhanced requirements for DetNet data plane including 
the information used by functions ensuring deterministic latency should be supported. And queuing mechanisms and 
solutions require different information to help the functions of ensuring deterministic latency, including regulation, 
queue management. <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy"/> has defined the classification criteria and the suitable 
categories for this solutions.</t>
      <t>The computing method of end-to-end delay bounds is defined in <xref target="RFC9320"/>. It is the sum of the 6 delays in DetNet
bounded latency model. And these delays should be measured and collected by IGP, but the related mechanisms
are out of this document. The end-to-end delay bounds can also be computed as the sum of non queuing delay bound and
queuing delay bound along the path. The upper bounds of non queuing delay are constant and depend on the specific 
network and the value of queuing delay bound depends on the queuing mechanisms deployed along the path. The queuing delay
may differ notably in their specific queuing solutions, which should be selected and calculated by the controller (or PCE). 
The deterministic latency information related to each queuing mechanism should also be distributed.</t>
      <t>As per <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework"/>, explicit path should be calculated and established in control plane 
to guarantee the deterministic transmission. The corresponding IS-IS and OSPF extensions are specified in 
<xref target="I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering"/>. When the PCE is deployed, the path computation should be applicable 
for deterministic networks. It is required that bounded latency including minimum and maximum end-to-end latency and 
bounded delay variation are considered during the deterministic path selection for PCE. The bounded latency constraints 
should be extended for PCEP. Moreover, the queuing-based parameters along the deterministic path should be provided to 
the PCC after the path computation such as deterministic latency information.</t>
      <t>This document describes the extensions for PCEP to carry bounded latency constraints and distribute deterministic paths for 
end-to-end path computation in deterministic services.</t>
      <section anchor="requirements-language">
        <name>Requirements Language</name>
        <t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="terminology">
      <name>Terminology</name>
      <t>The terminology is defined as <xref target="RFC8655"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="pcep-extensions">
      <name>PCEP Extensions</name>
      <section anchor="metric-object">
        <name>METRIC Object</name>
        <t>The METRIC object is defined in Section 7.8 of <xref target="RFC5440"/>, comprising metric-value and metric-type (T field), 
and a flags field, comprising a number of bit flags (B bit and C bit).  This document defines three types for 
the METRIC object to represent the end-to-end bounded latency.</t>
        <section anchor="end-to-end-minimum-latency-metric">
          <name>End-to-End Minimum Latency Metric</name>
          <t>This document proposes the end-to-end minimum latency metric in PCEP to represent the lower bound of the end-to-end delay.
The extensions for End-to-End Minimum Latency Metric are as following shown:</t>
          <t>*T=TBD1: End-to-End Minimum Latency Metric.</t>
          <t>*The value of End-to-End Minimum Latency Metric is the encoding in units of microseconds with 32 bits.</t>
          <t>*The B bit MUST be set to suggest a minimum bound for the end-to-end delay of deterministic path. 
The end-to-end delay must be no less than or equal to the value.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="end-to-end-maximum-latency-metric">
          <name>End-to-End Maximum Latency Metric</name>
          <t>This document proposes the end-to-end maximum latency metric in PCEP to represent the upper bound of the end-to-end delay.
The extensions for End-to-End Maximum Latency Metric are as following shown:</t>
          <t>*T=TBD2: End-to-End Maximum Latency Metric.</t>
          <t>*The value of End-to-End Maximum Latency Metric is the encoding in units of microseconds with 32 bits.</t>
          <t>*The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-end delay of deterministic path. 
The end-to-end delay must be less than or equal to the value.</t>
        </section>
        <section anchor="end-to-end-latency-variation-metric">
          <name>End-to-End Latency Variation Metric</name>
          <t>This document proposes the end-to-end latency variation metric in PCEP to represent the difference between the
end-to-end upper latency and the end-to-end lower latency along a deterministic path. The extensions for 
End-to-End Latency Variation Metric are as following shown:</t>
          <t>*T=TBD3: End-to-End Latency Variation Metric.</t>
          <t>*The value of End-to-End Latency Variation Metric is the encoding in units of microseconds with 32 bits.</t>
          <t>*The B bit MUST be set to suggest a maximum bound for the end-to-end latency variation of deterministic path. 
The end-to-end latency variation must be less than or equal to the value.</t>
        </section>
      </section>
      <section anchor="lsp-object">
        <name>LSP Object</name>
        <t>The LSP Object is defined in Section 7.3 of <xref target="RFC8231"/>.  This document defines a new flag (D-flag) to present 
the deterministic path for the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV carried in LSP Object as defined in <xref target="RFC9357"/>.</t>
        <t>D (Request for Deterministic Path) : If the bit is set to 1, it indicates that the PCC requests PCE to compute 
the deterministic path. A PCE would also set this bit to 1 to indicate that the deterministic path is included 
by PCE and encoded in the PCRep, PCUpd or PCInitiate message.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="deterministic-path-ero-subobject">
        <name>Deterministic Path ERO Subobject</name>
        <t>The ERO (Explicit Route Object) specified in <xref target="RFC3209"/> and <xref target="RFC5440"/> can be used to carry a set of
computed paths. In order to carry deterministic latency information, this document defines a new optional ERO subobject 
referred to as the Deterministic Path ERO subobject (DP-ERO). An ERO carrying a deterministic path consists of one 
or more ERO subobjects, and it MUST carry DP-ERO subobjects.</t>
        <t>An DP-ERO subobject is formatted as shown in the following figure:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |L|  Type=TBD4  |     Length    |     Class     |    DLI  Type  |        
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //  Deterministic Latency Information(variable, optional)       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     Figure 1 DP-ERO subobject
]]></artwork>
        <t>where:</t>
        <t>*L (1bit): The L bit is an attribute of the subobject. The L bit is set if the subobject represents
a loose hop in the explicit route. If the bit is not set, the subobject represents a strict hop in 
the explicit route.</t>
        <t>*Type (8bits):  Set to TBD4.</t>
        <t>*Length (8bits): Contains the total length of the subobject in octets.<br/>
The Length MUST be at least 8 and MUST be a multiple of 4.</t>
        <t>*Class (8bits): indicates the deterministic forwarding class.</t>
        <t>*Deterministic Latency Information(DLI) Type (8bits): indicates the type of deterministic latency information
 with related queuing and scheduling metadata and it aglined with the suitable categories as defined in 
 <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy"/> and shown in Figure 2.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           | Value  | DLI Type                           |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0000  | Unassigned                         |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0001  | Right-bounded                      |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0002  | Flow level periodic bounded        |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0003  | Class level periodic bounded       |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0004  | Flow level non-periodic bounded    |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0005  | Class level non-periodic bounded   |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0006  | Flow level rate based unbounded    |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           |0x0007  | Flow level rate based left-bounded |
           +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                               Figure 2 DLI Type
]]></artwork>
        <t>*Deterministic Latency Information(DLI) (variable): indicates the corresponding deterministic latency parameters. 
The encoding format of each DLI depends on the value of the DLI type and aligns with the deterministic latency 
information as defined in section 4.2 <xref target="I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp"/>.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="deterministic-path-rro-subobject">
        <name>Deterministic Path RRO Subobject</name>
        <t>The Deterministic Path RECORD_ROUTE Object (DP-RRO) subobject is OPTIONAL.  If used, it is carried in the RECORD_ROUTE Object (RRO).<br/>
The subobject uses the standard format of an RRO subobject. The format of the DP-RRO subobject is the same as that
of the DP-ERO subobject, but without the L flag.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="operations">
      <name>Operations</name>
      <section anchor="calculation-of-end-to-end-bounded-latency">
        <name>Calculation of End-to-end Bounded Latency</name>
        <t>As per <xref target="RFC9320"/>, the end-to-end delay bound can be computed as the sum of Output delay, Link delay, Frame preemption 
delay, Processing delay, Regulation delay and Queuing delay along a deterministic path like following:</t>
        <t>*per-hop_delay_bound = sum{Output delay + Link delay + Frame preemption delay + Processing delay + Regulation delay + Queuing delay}.</t>
        <t>*end_to_end_delay_bound = sum{per-hop_delay_bound(h),(h=1,2,...H)}.</t>
        <t>As per <xref target="RFC9320"/>, it also can be encoded as the sum of non queuing delay bound and queuing delay bound along the 
deterministic path. Per-hop non queuing delay bound is the sum of the bounds over delays including Output delay, 
Link delay, Frame preemption delay and Processing delay and per-hop queuing delay bound is the sum of Regulation delay 
and Queuing delay like following:</t>
        <t>*end_to_end_delay_bound = non_queuing_delay_bound + queuing_delay_bound.</t>
        <t>As per <xref target="RFC9320"/>, the end-to-end delay variation can be encoded as the sum of non queuing delay variation and queuing 
delay variation along the deterministic path like following:</t>
        <t>*end_to_end_delay_variation = non_queuing_delay_variation + queuing_delay_variation.</t>
        <t>Moreover, as discussed in <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy"/>, the end-to-end bounded latency calculation includes the 
bounded delay and variation. The calculation of end-to-end bounded delay and variation will differ in each queuing solution. 
For example, the end-to-end delay variation is 2 times of the cycle ID when selecting cyclic-based queuing mechanism.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="metric-types">
        <name>Metric types</name>
        <t>The PCE needs to collect the value of the delays as per <xref target="RFC9320"/> and related parameters by IGP, calculate the bounded 
latency, select a deterministic path with a specific queuing mechanism which meet the requirements and configure the 
related parameters to a PCC. The PCC MAY use the end-to-end bounded latency metrics in a Path Computation Request (PCReq) 
message to request a deterministic path meeting the end-to-end bounded latency requirements. A PCE MAY use the metrics in 
a Path Computation Reply (PCRep) message along with a NO-PATH object in the case where the PCE cannot compute a path meeting 
this constraints.  A PCE can also use the metrics to send the computed end-to-end bounded latency to the PCC.</t>
      </section>
      <section anchor="ero-and-rro-subobjects">
        <name>ERO and RRO Subobjects</name>
        <t>A PCC can request the computation of deterministic path and a PCE may respond with PCRep message. And the 
deterministic path can also be initiated by PCE with PCInitiate or PCUpd message in stateful PCE mode. 
When the D bit in LSP object is set to 1 within the message, it indicates to request the calculation of 
deterministic path. When the bit is set in Metric object to indicate the end-to-end bounded latnecy metric, the PCE
should calculate the end-to-end latency bound to select the optimal deterministic path to meet the requirements.</t>
        <t>The DP-ERO subobject can be carried along the path to indicate the deterministic path and related information. The 
deterministic path being received by PCC encoded in DP-ERO, which carry the deterministic latency information. And
the PCC may insert the deterministic latency information as the DetNet-specific metadata into the packet headers to 
achieve the deterministic forwarding.</t>
        <t>The set of computed paths can be specified by means of ERO <xref target="RFC3209"/>, SR-RRO <xref target="RFC8664"/> and SRv6-ERO <xref target="RFC9603"/> 
subobjects. When the D bit in LSP object is set to 1, a DP-ERO subobject which carrying the deterministic path information
MAY be inserted directly after the existing identifying subobjects such as ERO <xref target="RFC3209"/> , SR-ERO <xref target="RFC8664"/> and SRv6-ERO
<xref target="RFC9603"/>. The PCE will select only one DLI type from seven categories and compute the deterministic path with 
different DLI in each node along the path.</t>
        <t>A DP-ERO subobject corresponds to be a preceding subobject which can not be the first subobject. 
The PCE will select one DLI type from seven categories and compute the deterministic path with 
different DLI in each node along the path. For example, when the result is A, B, C in SR networks and 
the results with deterministic path will be like following:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
Deterministic path example with DLI type is 2:
SR-ERO subobject (SID A) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 2, DLI carry Flow level periodic bounded info at node A) ->
SR-ERO subobject (SID B) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 2, DLI carry Flow level periodic bounded info at node B) ->
SR ERO subobject (SID C) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 2, DLI carry Flow level periodic bounded info at node C) 

Deterministic path example with DLI type is 3:
SR-ERO subobject (SID A) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 3, DLI carry Class level periodic bounded info at node A) ->
SR-ERO subobject (SID B) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 3, DLI carry Class level periodic bounded info at node B) ->
SR-ERO subobject (SID C) + DP-ERO subobject (DLI type = 3, DLI carry Class level periodic bounded info at node C) 
]]></artwork>
        <t>The DP-RRO subobject can be also carried directly after the existing identifying RRO subobjects such as RRO <xref target="RFC3209"/>, 
SR-RRO <xref target="RFC8664"/> and SRv6-RRO <xref target="RFC9603"/>.</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="security-considerations">
      <name>Security Considerations</name>
      <t>Security considerations for DetNet are covered in the DetNet architecture <xref target="RFC8655"/>, DetNet security considerations
<xref target="RFC9055"/> and DetNet control plane <xref target="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework"/>. This document defines a new D bit 
and DP-ERO subobject for deterministic path in PCEP, which do not introduce any new security considerations beyond those
already listed in <xref target="RFC5440"/>,<xref target="RFC8231"/> and <xref target="RFC9357"/>.</t>
    </section>
    <section anchor="iana-considerations">
      <name>IANA Considerations</name>
      <section anchor="new-metric-types">
        <name>New Metric Types</name>
        <t>This document defines two new metric type for the PCEP.  IANA is
   requested to allocate the following codepoint in the PCEP "METRIC
   Object T Field" registry:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
        Value     Description                          Reference
        ------    ---------------------------------    -------------
        TBD1      End-to-End Minimum Latency Metric    This document
        TBD2      End-to-End Maximum Latency Metric    This document
        TBD3      End-to-End Latency Variation Metric  This document
                
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="new-lsp-extended-flag-flag-registry">
        <name>New LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG Flag Registry</name>
        <t><xref target="RFC9357"/> defines the LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.  IANA is requested to
   make allocations from the Flag field registry, as follows:</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
      Bit       Description                       Reference
      ------    ------------------------------    -------------
      D flag    Request for Deterministic Path    This document
                
]]></artwork>
      </section>
      <section anchor="new-ero-and-rro-subobject">
        <name>New ERO and RRO Subobject</name>
        <t>This document defines a new subobject type for the PCEP explicit
   route object (ERO).  The code points for subobject types of these
   objects is maintained in the RSVP parameters registry, under the
   EXPLICIT_ROUTE and RECORD_ROUTE objects.  IANA is requested to 
   confirm the following allocations in the RSVP Parameters registry 
   for each of the new subobject types defined in this document.</t>
        <artwork><![CDATA[
      Object                Subobject                  Subobject Type
      --------------        ---------------------      ---------------
      EXPLICIT_ROUTE        DP-ERO (PCEP-specific)     TBD4
      RECORD_ROUTE          DP-RRO (PCEP-specific)     TBD4
]]></artwork>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section anchor="acknowledgements">
      <name>Acknowledgements</name>
      <t>The authors would like to thank Dhruv Dhody, Andrew Stone, Lou
   Berger, Janos Farkas for their review, suggestions and comments to
   this document.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references anchor="sec-combined-references">
      <name>References</name>
      <references anchor="sec-normative-references">
        <name>Normative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC2119">
          <front>
            <title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
            <author fullname="S. Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner"/>
            <date month="March" year="1997"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC5440">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)</title>
            <author fullname="JP. Vasseur" initials="JP." role="editor" surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="JL. Le Roux" initials="JL." role="editor" surname="Le Roux"/>
            <date month="March" year="2009"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document specifies the Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. Such interactions include path computation requests and path computation replies as well as notifications of specific states related to the use of a PCE in the context of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering. PCEP is designed to be flexible and extensible so as to easily allow for the addition of further messages and objects, should further requirements be expressed in the future. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5440"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5440"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC4655">
          <front>
            <title>A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="A. Farrel" initials="A." surname="Farrel"/>
            <author fullname="J.-P. Vasseur" initials="J.-P." surname="Vasseur"/>
            <author fullname="J. Ash" initials="J." surname="Ash"/>
            <date month="August" year="2006"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Constraint-based path computation is a fundamental building block for traffic engineering systems such as Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) networks. Path computation in large, multi-domain, multi-region, or multi-layer networks is complex and may require special computational components and cooperation between the different network domains.</t>
              <t>This document specifies the architecture for a Path Computation Element (PCE)-based model to address this problem space. This document does not attempt to provide a detailed description of all the architectural components, but rather it describes a set of building blocks for the PCE architecture from which solutions may be constructed. This memo provides information for the Internet community.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4655"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4655"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8174">
          <front>
            <title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
            <author fullname="B. Leiba" initials="B." surname="Leiba"/>
            <date month="May" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8231">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="E. Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe"/>
            <author fullname="I. Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei"/>
            <author fullname="J. Medved" initials="J." surname="Medved"/>
            <author fullname="R. Varga" initials="R." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="September" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests.</t>
              <t>Although PCEP explicitly makes no assumptions regarding the information available to the PCE, it also makes no provisions for PCE control of timing and sequence of path computations within and across PCEP sessions. This document describes a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8231"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8231"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8233">
          <front>
            <title>Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to Compute Service-Aware Label Switched Paths (LSPs)</title>
            <author fullname="D. Dhody" initials="D." surname="Dhody"/>
            <author fullname="Q. Wu" initials="Q." surname="Wu"/>
            <author fullname="V. Manral" initials="V." surname="Manral"/>
            <author fullname="Z. Ali" initials="Z." surname="Ali"/>
            <author fullname="K. Kumaki" initials="K." surname="Kumaki"/>
            <date month="September" year="2017"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>In certain networks, such as, but not limited to, financial information networks (e.g., stock market data providers), network performance criteria (e.g., latency) are becoming as critical to data path selection as other metrics and constraints. These metrics are associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. The link bandwidth utilization (the total bandwidth of a link in actual use for the forwarding) is another important factor to consider during path computation.</t>
              <t>IGP Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions describe mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and IS-IS, respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Client (PCC) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry latency, delay variation, packet loss, and link bandwidth utilization as constraints for end-to-end path computation.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8233"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8233"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9357">
          <front>
            <title>Label Switched Path (LSP) Object Flag Extension for Stateful PCE</title>
            <author fullname="Q. Xiong" initials="Q." surname="Xiong"/>
            <date month="February" year="2023"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>RFC 8231 describes a set of extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP. One of the extensions is the LSP object, which includes a Flag field with a length of 12 bits. However, all bits of the Flag field have already been assigned.</t>
              <t>This document defines a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV for the LSP object for an extended Flag field.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9357"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9357"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9603">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for IPv6 Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="C. Li" initials="C." role="editor" surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="P. Kaladharan" initials="P." surname="Kaladharan"/>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="M. Koldychev" initials="M." surname="Koldychev"/>
            <author fullname="Y. Zhu" initials="Y." surname="Zhu"/>
            <date month="July" year="2024"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) can be used to steer packets through a network using the IPv6 or MPLS data plane, employing the source routing paradigm.</t>
              <t>An SR Path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE).</t>
              <t>Since SR can be applied to both MPLS and IPv6 data planes, a PCE should be able to compute an SR Path for both MPLS and IPv6 data planes. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) extension and mechanisms to support SR-MPLS have been defined. This document outlines the necessary extensions to support SR for the IPv6 data plane within PCEP.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9603"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9603"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8655">
          <front>
            <title>Deterministic Networking Architecture</title>
            <author fullname="N. Finn" initials="N." surname="Finn"/>
            <author fullname="P. Thubert" initials="P." surname="Thubert"/>
            <author fullname="B. Varga" initials="B." surname="Varga"/>
            <author fullname="J. Farkas" initials="J." surname="Farkas"/>
            <date month="October" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document provides the overall architecture for Deterministic Networking (DetNet), which provides a capability to carry specified unicast or multicast data flows for real-time applications with extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency within a network domain. Techniques used include 1) reserving data-plane resources for individual (or aggregated) DetNet flows in some or all of the intermediate nodes along the path of the flow, 2) providing explicit routes for DetNet flows that do not immediately change with the network topology, and 3) distributing data from DetNet flow packets over time and/or space to ensure delivery of each packet's data in spite of the loss of a path. DetNet operates at the IP layer and delivers service over lower-layer technologies such as MPLS and Time- Sensitive Networking (TSN) as defined by IEEE 802.1.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8655"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8655"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC8664">
          <front>
            <title>Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for Segment Routing</title>
            <author fullname="S. Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan"/>
            <author fullname="C. Filsfils" initials="C." surname="Filsfils"/>
            <author fullname="J. Tantsura" initials="J." surname="Tantsura"/>
            <author fullname="W. Henderickx" initials="W." surname="Henderickx"/>
            <author fullname="J. Hardwick" initials="J." surname="Hardwick"/>
            <date month="December" year="2019"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>Segment Routing (SR) enables any head-end node to select any path without relying on a hop-by-hop signaling technique (e.g., LDP or RSVP-TE). It depends only on "segments" that are advertised by link-state Interior Gateway Protocols (IGPs). An SR path can be derived from a variety of mechanisms, including an IGP Shortest Path Tree (SPT), an explicit configuration, or a Path Computation Element (PCE). This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) that allow a stateful PCE to compute and initiate Traffic-Engineering (TE) paths, as well as a Path Computation Client (PCC) to request a path subject to certain constraints and optimization criteria in SR networks.</t>
              <t>This document updates RFC 8408.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8664"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8664"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC9320">
          <front>
            <title>Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Bounded Latency</title>
            <author fullname="N. Finn" initials="N." surname="Finn"/>
            <author fullname="J.-Y. Le Boudec" initials="J.-Y." surname="Le Boudec"/>
            <author fullname="E. Mohammadpour" initials="E." surname="Mohammadpour"/>
            <author fullname="J. Zhang" initials="J." surname="Zhang"/>
            <author fullname="B. Varga" initials="B." surname="Varga"/>
            <date month="November" year="2022"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document presents a timing model for sources, destinations, and Deterministic Networking (DetNet) transit nodes. Using the model, it provides a methodology to compute end-to-end latency and backlog bounds for various queuing methods. The methodology can be used by the management and control planes and by resource reservation algorithms to provide bounded latency and zero congestion loss for the DetNet service.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9320"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9320"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="RFC3209">
          <front>
            <title>RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels</title>
            <author fullname="D. Awduche" initials="D." surname="Awduche"/>
            <author fullname="L. Berger" initials="L." surname="Berger"/>
            <author fullname="D. Gan" initials="D." surname="Gan"/>
            <author fullname="T. Li" initials="T." surname="Li"/>
            <author fullname="V. Srinivasan" initials="V." surname="Srinivasan"/>
            <author fullname="G. Swallow" initials="G." surname="Swallow"/>
            <date month="December" year="2001"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>This document describes the use of RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol), including all the necessary extensions, to establish label-switched paths (LSPs) in MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching). Since the flow along an LSP is completely identified by the label applied at the ingress node of the path, these paths may be treated as tunnels. A key application of LSP tunnels is traffic engineering with MPLS as specified in RFC 2702. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3209"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC3209"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements">
          <front>
            <title>Requirements for Scaling Deterministic Networks</title>
            <author fullname="Peng Liu" initials="P." surname="Liu">
              <organization>China Mobile</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Yizhou Li" initials="Y." surname="Li">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Toerless Eckert" initials="T. T." surname="Eckert">
              <organization>Futurewei Technologies USA</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Quan Xiong" initials="Q." surname="Xiong">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Jeong-dong Ryoo" initials="J." surname="Ryoo">
              <organization>ETRI</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="zhushiyin" initials="" surname="zhushiyin">
              <organization>New H3C Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Xuesong Geng" initials="X." surname="Geng">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="7" month="September" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   Aiming to scale deterministic networks, this document describes the
   technical and operational requirements when the network has a large
   variation in latency among hops, a great number of flows and/or
   multiple domains that do not share the same time source.
   Applications with varying levels of determinism co-exist and are
   transported in such a network.  This document also describes the
   corresponding Deterministic Networking (DetNet) data plane
   enhancement requirements.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-detnet-scaling-requirements-09"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework">
          <front>
            <title>A Framework for Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Controller Plane</title>
            <author fullname="Andrew G. Malis" initials="A. G." surname="Malis">
              <organization>Independent</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Xuesong Geng" initials="X." surname="Geng">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Mach Chen" initials="M." surname="Chen">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Balazs Varga" initials="B." surname="Varga">
              <organization>Ericsson</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Carlos J. Bernardos" initials="C. J." surname="Bernardos">
              <organization>Universidad Carlos III de Madrid</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="24" month="September" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document provides a framework overview for the Deterministic
   Networking (DetNet) controller plane.  It discusses concepts and
   requirements for DetNet controller plane which could be the basis for
   a future solution specification.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-detnet-controller-plane-framework-15"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy">
          <front>
            <title>Dataplane Enhancement Taxonomy</title>
            <author fullname="Jinoo Joung" initials="J." surname="Joung">
              <organization>Sangmyung University</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Xuesong Geng" initials="X." surname="Geng">
              <organization>Huawei</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Shaofu Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Toerless Eckert" initials="T. T." surname="Eckert">
              <organization>Futurewei Technologies</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="8" month="January" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This draft is to facilitate the understanding of the data plane
   enhancement solutions, which are suggested currently or can be
   suggested in the future, for deterministic networking.  This draft
   provides criteria for classifying data plane solutions.  Examples of
   each category are listed, along with reasons where necessary.
   Strengths and limitations of the categories are described.
   Suitability of the solutions for various services of deterministic
   networking are also mentioned.  Reference topologies for evaluation
   of the solutions are given as well.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-ietf-detnet-dataplane-taxonomy-05"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp">
          <front>
            <title>Data Fields for DetNet Enhanced Data Plane</title>
            <author fullname="Quan Xiong" initials="Q." surname="Xiong">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Aihua Liu" initials="A." surname="Liu">
              <organization>ZTE Corporation</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Rakesh Gandhi" initials="R." surname="Gandhi">
              <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
            </author>
            <author fullname="Dong Yang" initials="D." surname="Yang">
              <organization>Beijing Jiaotong University</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="1" month="July" year="2025"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   The DetNet-specific metadata should be carried in enhanced data plane
   based on the enhancement requirements.  This document proposes the
   common DetNet data fields and option types such as Aggregation Option
   and Deterministic Latency Option.  The common DetNet Data-Fields can
   be encapsulated into a variety of protocols such as MPLS, IPv6 and
   SRv6 networks.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-xiong-detnet-data-fields-edp-03"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
      <references anchor="sec-informative-references">
        <name>Informative References</name>
        <reference anchor="RFC9055">
          <front>
            <title>Deterministic Networking (DetNet) Security Considerations</title>
            <author fullname="E. Grossman" initials="E." role="editor" surname="Grossman"/>
            <author fullname="T. Mizrahi" initials="T." surname="Mizrahi"/>
            <author fullname="A. Hacker" initials="A." surname="Hacker"/>
            <date month="June" year="2021"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>A DetNet (deterministic network) provides specific performance guarantees to its data flows, such as extremely low data loss rates and bounded latency (including bounded latency variation, i.e., "jitter"). As a result, securing a DetNet requires that in addition to the best practice security measures taken for any mission-critical network, additional security measures may be needed to secure the intended operation of these novel service properties.</t>
              <t>This document addresses DetNet-specific security considerations from the perspectives of both the DetNet system-level designer and component designer. System considerations include a taxonomy of relevant threats and attacks, and associations of threats versus use cases and service properties. Component-level considerations include ingress filtering and packet arrival-time violation detection.</t>
              <t>This document also addresses security considerations specific to the IP and MPLS data plane technologies, thereby complementing the Security Considerations sections of those documents.</t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9055"/>
          <seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC9055"/>
        </reference>
        <reference anchor="I-D.peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering">
          <front>
            <title>IGP Extensions for Deterministic Traffic Engineering</title>
            <author fullname="Shaofu Peng" initials="S." surname="Peng">
              <organization>ZTE</organization>
            </author>
            <date day="8" month="January" year="2026"/>
            <abstract>
              <t>   This document describes IGP extensions to support Traffic Engineering
   (TE) of deterministic routing, by specifying new information that a
   router can place in the advertisement of neighbors.  This information
   describes additional details regarding the state of the network that
   are useful for deterministic traffic engineering path computations.

              </t>
            </abstract>
          </front>
          <seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-peng-lsr-deterministic-traffic-engineering-04"/>
        </reference>
      </references>
    </references>
    <?line 370?>



  </back>
  <!-- ##markdown-source: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-->

</rfc>
