<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-ietf-pce-association-group-02" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="PCE association group">
    PCEP Extensions for Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs</title>

    <author fullname="Ina Minei" initials="I." surname="Minei">
      <organization>Google, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway</street>
	  <city>Mountain View</city>
	  <region>CA</region>
	  <code>94043</code>
	  <country>US</country>
	</postal>
	<email>inaminei@google.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Edward Crabbe" initials="E." surname="Crabbe">
      <address>
        <email>edward.crabbe@gmail.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
	
    <author fullname="Siva Sivabalan" initials="S." surname="Sivabalan">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>170 West Tasman Dr.</street>
	  <city>San Jose</city>
	  <region>CA</region>
	  <code>95134</code>
	  <country>US</country>
	</postal>
	<email>msiva@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <author fullname="Hariharan Ananthakrishnan" initials="H." surname="Ananthakrishnan">
      <organization>Packet Design</organization>
      <address>
	<email>hari@packetdesign.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

	<author fullname="Xian Zhang" initials="X." surname="Zhang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>F3-5-B R&amp;D Center, Huawei Base Bantian, Longgang District
</street>
	  <city>Shenzhen</city>
	  <region>Guangdong</region>
	  <code>518129</code>
	  <country>P.R.China</country>
	</postal>
	<email>zhang.xian@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>


	<author fullname="Yosuke Tanaka" initials="Y." surname="Tanaka">
      <organization>NTT Communications Corporation</organization>
      <address>
	<postal>
	  <street>Granpark Tower 3-4-1 Shibaura, Minato-ku
</street>
	  <city>Tokyo</city>
	  <region></region>
	  <code>108-8118</code>
	  <country>Japan</country>
	</postal>
	<email>yosuke.tanaka@ntt.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

    <date day="9" month="January" year="2017" />

    <workgroup>PCE Working Group</workgroup>

    <abstract>
    <t> This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs in the 
       context of a PCE. 
       This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a 
       set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), 
       and is equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE as well as
	   a stateless PCE.
       </t>
    </abstract>

    <note title="Requirements Language">
      <t>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 <xref target="RFC2119"/>.
      </t>
    </note>
  </front>

  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction">
      <t><xref target="RFC5440"/> describes the Path Computation Element
      Protocol PCEP.  PCEP enables the communication between a Path Computation
      Client (PCC) and a Path Control Element (PCE), or between PCE and PCE,
      for the purpose of computation of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) as well
      as Generalzied MPLS (GMPLS) for Traffic
      Engineering Label Switched Path (TE LSP) characteristics.
      </t>

      <t><xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'>Stateful pce</xref>  specifies a 
      set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful
      control of TE LSPs between and across PCEP sessions in compliance with
      <xref target="RFC4657"/> and focuses on a model where LSPs are configured 
      on the PCC and control over them is delegated to the PCE. The model of 
      operation where LSPs are initiated from the PCE is described in 
      <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp'></xref>.
      </t>
	  
       <t> This document introduces a generic mechanism to create a grouping of LSPs. 
       This grouping can then be used to define associations between sets of LSPs or between a 
       set of LSPs and a set of attributes (such as configuration parameters or behaviors), 
       and is equally applicable to the active and passive modes of a stateful PCE and a stateless
	   PCE.
       </t>


    </section> <!-- Introduction -->

    <section title="Terminology">
      <t>This document uses the following terms defined in <xref
      target="RFC5440"/>: PCC, PCE, PCEP Peer.  </t>
      
      <t> The following term is defined in this document: </t>
	  
      <t> Association Timeout Interval: when a PCEP session is terminated, 
      a PCC waits for this time period before deleting associations created by the PCEP peer. 
      </t> 		  
    </section> <!-- Terminology -->
 

    <section anchor="Overview" title="Architectural Overview">
     <section anchor="Motivation" title="Motivation">
	 <t> 
         Stateful PCE provides the ability to update existing LSPs and to instantiate new ones. 
         To enable support for PCE-controlled make-before-break and for protection, there is a need
         to define associations between LSPs. For example, the association between the original 
         and the re-optimized path in the make-before break scenario, or between the 
         working and protection path in end-to-end protection. Another use for LSP grouping is for
         applying a common set of configuration parameters or behaviors to a set of LSPs. 
	 </t>
	<t>
	  For a  stateless PCE, it might be useful to associate a path 
	  computation request to an association group, thus enabling it to associate
	  a common
	  set of configuration parameters or behaviors  with
	  the request.
	 </t>
	<t>
         Rather than creating separate mechanisms for each use case, this draft defines a generic mechanism that can 
	 be reused as needed. 
	 </t>
      </section><!-- Motivation -->
	 
      <section anchor="Operation-overview" title="Operation Overview">
	 <t>
	 LSPs are associated with other LSPs with which they interact by
	 adding them to a common association group.  Association groups as
	 defined in this document can be applied to LSPs originating at the same head end 
	 or different head ends.  For LSPs originating at the same head end, the association 
	 can be initiated by either the PCC (head end)  or by a PCE.  Only a stateful
	 PCE can initiate an association for LSPs originating at different head ends. 
	 For both cases, the association is uniquely identified by the combination of an association 
	 identifier and the address of the node that created the association.  
	 </t>
	 
	 <t> 
         Multiple types of groups can exist, each with their own identifiers space. 
	 The definition of the different association types and their behaviors is 
	 outside the scope of this document.  The establishment and removal of the 
	 association relationship can be done on a per LSP basis. 
	 An LSP may join multiple association groups, of different or of the same type. 
         </t> 

	<t>
	In the case of a stateless PCE, associations are created out of band, and 
	PCEP peers should be aware of the association and its significance 
	outside of the protocol.
	</t>

	<t> 
	Association groups can be created by both PCC and PCE. When a PCC's
	PCEP session with a PCE terminates unexpectedly, the PCC cleans up associations (as per 
	the processing rules in this document). 
	</t> 

      </section><!-- Operation overview -->
     </section><!-- Overview -->
     

		
    <section anchor="association" title="ASSOCIATION Object">
	<section anchor="Definition" title="Object Definition">
	  <t> 
	    Creation of an association group and modifications to its membership 
	    can be initiated by either the PCE or the PCC.  Association groups
	    and their memberships are defined using the ASSOCIATION object for 
	    stateful PCE.
	  </t> 
	
    <t>ASSOCIATION Object-Class is to be assigned by IANA (TBD).</t>
	<t> ASSOCIATION Object-Type is 1 for IPv4 and its format is shown in
	<xref target="Association-Object-Fmt1"/>:</t>

     <figure anchor="Association-Object-Fmt1" title="The IPv4 ASSOCIATION Object format">
     <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Association type         |      Association ID           |                      
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   
   |              IPv4 Association Source                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                   Optional TLVs	                          //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	      ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
		
	<t> ASSOCIATION Object-Type is 2 for IPv6 and its format is shown in
	<xref target="Association-Object-Fmt2"/>:</t>

     <figure anchor="Association-Object-Fmt2" title="The IPv6 ASSOCIATION Object format">
     <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Reserved              |            Flags            |R|  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      Association type         |      Association ID           |                      
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                    IPv6 Association Source                    |
   |                                                               |  
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //                   Optional TLVs	                          //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

	      ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
        <t> Reserved: 16 bits - MUST be set to 0 and ignored upon receipt. </t>
	<t>
	Flags: 16 bits -  The following flags are currently defined: 
	
	<list style="hanging">
            <t hangText="R (Removal - 1 bit):"> when set, the requesting
			PCE peer requires the removal of an LSP from the association group.</t>
    </list>
	</t>
	<t>
	Association type: 16 bits - the association type (for example protection).
        The association type will be defined
	in separate documents.     
	</t>

	<t> Association ID: 16 bits - the identifier of the association group.  When combined 
	with Type and Association Source, this value uniquely identifies an association group.  
	The value 0xffff and 0x0 are reserved. The value 0xffff is used to indicate 
	all association groups. 
	</t>
	
	
	<t> Association Source: 4 or 16 bytes - An IPv4 or IPv6 address, which is associated 
	to the node that originated the association.
	</t>
	
	<t> Optional TLVs: The optional TLVs follow the PCEP TLV format
        of <xref target="RFC5440"/>. This document defines two optional TLVs.
	</t>

	<section anchor="Global-association-src" title="Global Association Source TLV">
	
	  <t> The Global Association Source TLV is an optional TLV for use in the Association Object. 
	  </t> 

   <figure anchor="Global-Association-Object-Fmt1" title="The Global Association Source TLV  format">
     <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Type                  |            Length             |  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   |              Global Association Source                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 

	      ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
	<t> Type: To be allocated by IANA </t> 
	<t> Length: Fixed value of 4 bytes </t> 
	<t> Global Association Source: as defined in <xref target="RFC6780"/> </t> 

	</section> 



	<section anchor="EXT-association" title="Extended Association ID TLV">

	  <t> The Extended Association ID TLV is an optional TLV for use in 
	  the Association Object. 
	  </t> 

   <figure anchor="Ext-id-Object-Fmt1" title="The Extended Association ID  TLV  format">
     <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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |         Type                  |            Length             |  
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
   //                Extended Association ID                       //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 

	      ]]></artwork>
        </figure>
	<t> Type: To be allocated by IANA </t> 
	<t> Length: variable </t> 
	<t> Extended Association ID: as defined in <xref target="RFC6780"/> </t> 

	</section> 

	</section> <!-- Object Definition -->

	<section  anchor="Object-Encoding" title="Object Encoding in PCEP messages">

	<t> The ASSOCIATION Object is OPTIONAL and MAY be carried in the Path 
	Computation Update (PCUpd), Path Computation Report (PCRpt) and Path 
	Computation Initiate (PCinit) messages. </t>

	<t> When carried in PCRpt message, it is used to report the association 
	group membership information pertaining to a LSP to a stateful PCE.  
	It can also be used to remove an LSP from one or more association groups 
	by setting the R flag to 1.  Unless, a PCE wants to delete an association 
	from an LSP, it does not need to carry the ASSOCIATION 
	object while updating other LSP attributes using the PCUpd message.</t>

    <t> The PCRpt message is defined in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref> 
	and updated as below:</t>
	
	<figure>
	<artwork><![CDATA[

<PCRpt Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <state-report-list>
Where:   

  <state-report-list> ::= <state-report>[<state-report-list>]

   <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
                      <LSP>
                      [<association-list>]
                      <path>
Where:  

<association-list> ::= <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]
	]]></artwork>
	</figure>

	<t> When an LSP is delegated to a stateful PCE, the stateful PCE can initiate 
	a new association group for this LSP, or associate it with one or more existing
	association groups. This is done by including the  ASSOCIATION Object in a 
	PCUpd message or in a PCInit message.  A stateful PCE can also remove a delegated 
	LSP from one or more association groups by setting the R flag to 1.</t>

    <t> The PCUpd message is defined in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref>
	and updated as below:</t>
	
	<figure>
	   <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCUpd Message> ::= <Common Header>
                    <update-request-list>
Where:
   <update-request-list> ::= <update-request>[<update-request-list>]

   <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                        <LSP>
                        [<association-list>]
                        <path>
						
Where:  <association-list> ::= <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]
     ]]></artwork>
	</figure>
    
	<t>The PCInitiate message is defined in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp'></xref> 
	and updated as below:
	</t>
	<figure>
	  <artwork><![CDATA[
<PCInitiate Message> ::= <Common Header>
                         <PCE-initiated-lsp-list>
Where:

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-list> ::= 
   <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>[<PCE-initiated-lsp-list>]

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-request>::= 
   (<PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation>|<PCE-initiated-lsp-deletion>)

   <PCE-initiated-lsp-instantiation> ::= <SRP>
                                         <LSP>
                                         <END-POINTS>
                                         <ERO>
                                         [<association-list>]
                                         [<attribute-list>]

Where:  
<association-list> ::= <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]
	]]></artwork>	  
	</figure>
	
	<t>
	In case of passive stateful or stateless PCE, the ASSOCIATION Object 
    is OPTIONAL and MAY be carried in the Path Computation Request 
   (PCReq) message. 
   </t>
   <t>
    When carried in a PCReq message, the ASSOCIATION Object is used to associate the path 
   computation request to an association group, the association 
   might be further informed via PCRpt message in case of passive
   stateful PCE later or it might be created out of band in case of
   stateless PCE.    
   </t>
   <t>
   The PCReq message is defined in [RFC5440] and updated in 
   [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce], it is further updated below for
   association: 
   </t>
   
 	<figure>
	  <artwork><![CDATA[  
<PCReq Message>::= <Common Header>
                   [<svec-list>]
                   <request-list>

Where:
      <svec-list>::= <SVEC>[<svec-list>]
      <request-list>::= <request>[<request-list>]

      <request>::= <RP>
                   <END-POINTS>
                   [<LSP>]
                   [<LSPA>]
                   [<BANDWIDTH>]
                   [<metric-list>]
                   [<association-list>]
                   [<RRO>[<BANDWIDTH>]]
                   [<IRO>]
                   [<LOAD-BALANCING>]
                                         
Where:
      <association-list> ::= <ASSOCIATION> [<association-list>]
   	]]></artwork>	  
	</figure>
	<t>
   Note that LSP object MAY be present for the passive stateful PCE.
   
	</t>
    </section> <!-- Object Encoding -->
	
	<section  anchor="Rules" title="Processing Rules">

	<t> 
	Both a PCC and a PCE can create one or more association groups for an LSP.
	But a PCE peer cannot add new members for association group created by 
	another peer. If a 
	PCE peer does not recognize the ASSOCIATION object, it MUST return a PCErr 
	message with Error-Type  "Unknown Object" as described in [RFC5440]. If a PCE 
	peer is unwilling or unable to process the ASSOCIATION object, it MUST return a 
	PCErr message with the Error-Type "Not supported object" and follow the relevant 
	procedures described in [RFC5440].
	</t>

	<t>
	  The association timeout interval is as a PCC-local value that can be 
	  operator-configured or computed by the PCC based on local policy and is used in the context
	  of cleaning up associations on session failure. The association timeout 
	  must be set to a value no larger than the state timeout interval (defined in 
         <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref>) and larger than the delegation
          timeout interval (defined in 
         <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref>. 
	</t> 

	 <t>
	   When a PCC's PCEP session wih the PCE terminates unexpectedly, the PCC MUST 
	   wait for the association timeout interval before cleaning up the association. 
	   If this PCEP session can be re-established before the association timeout 
	   interval time expires, no action is taken to clean the association created by 
	  this PCE. During the time window of the redelegation timeout interval and 
	  the association timeout interval, the PCE, after re-establishing the session,
	  can also ask for redelegation following the procedure
	  defined in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref>  and 
	  <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp'></xref>. 
	  When the association timeout interval timers expires, 
	  the PCC clears all the associations which are not delegated to any PCEs.
	 </t>
   
	 <t>Upon LSP delegation revocation, the PCC MAY clear the association 
	 created by the related PCE, but in order to avoid traffic loss, it can perform this 
	 in a make-before-break fashion, which is the same as what is defined in 
	 <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'>Stateful pce</xref> for handling 
	 LSP state cleanup.</t>
   
	 <t>Error handling for situations for multiple PCE scenarios will be included in 
	 future versions of this draft.
	 </t>	

    </section> <!-- Rules  -->
	
	</section> <!-- Association Object -->
	

   
	<section anchor="IANA-considerations" title="IANA Considerations">
	  
  
        <t>The "PCEP Parameters" registry contains a subregistry "PCEP Objects".  
		This document request IANA to allocate the values from this registry.</t>
        <texttable anchor="Object-Code-Points" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="center">Object-Class Value &nbsp;</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='50%'>Name </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left">Reference </ttcol>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</c><c></c>
          <c>TBD</c><c>Association</c><c>This document</c>
          <c></c><c>Object-Type</c><c></c>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1: IPv4 </c><c></c>
		  <c></c><c>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2: IPv6 </c><c></c>
        </texttable>
   

        <t>This document defines the following new PCEP TLVs:</t>

        <texttable anchor="new-association-TLV-CP" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="center" width='20%'>Value</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='40%'>Meaning </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='40%'>Reference </ttcol>
          <c>TBD</c><c>&nbsp;Global Association Source</c><c>This document</c>
          <c>TBD</c><c>&nbsp;Extended Association Id</c><c>This document</c>
        </texttable>

        <t>This document requests IANA to create a subregistry of the "PCEP Parameters" for 
		the bits carried in the Flags field of the ASSOCIATION object.  
		The subregistry is called "ASSOCIATION Flags Field". </t>
		
		<t> The field contains 12 bits numbered from bit 0 as the most significant bit.</t>
		 <texttable anchor="Association-Flags" style="none" suppress-title="true">
          <ttcol align="left">Bit;</ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left" width='50%'>Name: Description </ttcol>
          <ttcol align="left">Reference </ttcol>
          <c></c><c>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</c><c></c>
          <c>15</c><c> R: Removal</c><c>This document</c>
        </texttable>
		
		
	</section> <!-- IANA -->
	
   <section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
     
     <t> The security considerations described in <xref target='I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce'></xref> 
   apply to the extensions described in this document.  Additional
   considerations related to a malicious PCE are introduced, as the PCE may now create additional state
   on the PCC through the creation of association groups. 

  </t> 
   </section>

   <section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
     <t>We would like to thank Yuji Kamite and Joshua George for
     their contributions to this document. Also Thank Venugopal Reddy and 
	 Cyril Margaria for their useful comments.</t>
    </section>
	
   <section anchor="Contributor" title="Contributors">
    <t>
	Dhruv Dhody<vspace blankLines='0'/>
    Huawei Technologies<vspace blankLines='0'/>
    Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield<vspace blankLines='0'/>
    Bangalore, Karnataka  560037  <vspace blankLines='0'/>
    India <vspace blankLines='0'/>
    Email: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com<vspace blankLines='0'/>
    </t>
	
	<t> </t>
	
    </section><!-- Contributor -->
	
  </middle>

  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5440.xml"?>
      <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6780.xml"?>
    	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce"?>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp"?>
   </references>

   <references title="Informative References">
     <?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4657.xml"?>
   </references>
  </back>
</rfc>
