diff --git a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.md b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.md index 9ddd1cc..794cf0b 100644 --- a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.md +++ b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.md @@ -47,13 +47,13 @@ contributor: email: rgandhi@cisco.com normative: - ITU-T_G.709: - title: Interfaces for the optical transport network + ISOIEC_9899: + title: Information Technology - Programming Languages - C author: - org: International Telecommunication Union - date: June 2020 - seriesinfo: ITU-T G.709 - target: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.709 + org: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) + date: October 2024 + seriesinfo: ISO/IEC 9899:2024 + target: https://www.iso.org/standard/82075.html informative: MEF_10.3: @@ -85,19 +85,46 @@ statements is not a backward compatible change, as defined in {{Section 11 of !R This document adds new common data types, identities, and groupings to both the "ietf-te-types" and the "ietf-te-packet-types" YANG modules and obsoletes {{?RFC8776}}. For further details, refer to {{changes-bis}}. +## Editorial Note (To be removed by Editors of this document before sending it to the RFC Editor) + +> Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed this document is sent to the RFC Editor. + +The YANG trees in {{yang-tree}} have been generated by pyang and have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC Editor. + ## Editorial Note (To be removed by the RFC Editor) - Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to - publication. +> Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to publication. + +This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced +with finalized values at the time of publication. This note +summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. + +Please apply the following replacements: + +- XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this I-D +- draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 --> the draft version and section number as in the latest version of {{?I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo}} at the time this document is published as an RFC +- 2026-01-15 --> the actual date of the publication of this document +- 2026-01-23 --> the actual date of the publication of this document + +### References to RFCs + +This document references a huge number of RFCs only by the RFC number which makes it really hard to follow. + +A preference has been expressed to replace the references with the RFC title in the text and just use RFC number as a reference. + +For example: - This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced - with finalized values at the time of publication. This note - summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. +In section 1 change: - Please apply the following replacements: +> Section 4.12 of {{?I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis}} and Section 4.13 of +{{?I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis}}. - * XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this I-D - * 2025-12-19 --> the actual date of the publication of this document +to + +> Section 4.12 and Section 4.13 of YANG Data Models guidelines +document {{?I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis}}. + +It is suggested that the RFC Editor and the tooling team identify a way to expand the references as proposed in a programmatic way. ## Terminology @@ -113,8 +140,8 @@ This document adds new common data types, identities, and groupings to both the corresponding YANG imported modules, as shown in {{tab-prefixes}}. | Prefix | YANG module | Reference -| yang | ietf-yang-types | {{Section 3 of !RFC6991}} -| inet | ietf-inet-types | {{Section 4 of !RFC6991}} +| yang | ietf-yang-types | {{Section 3 of !RFC9911}} +| inet | ietf-inet-types | {{Section 4 of !RFC9911}} | rt-types | ietf-routing-types | {{!RFC8294}} | te-types | ietf-te-types | RFC XXXX | te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | RFC XXXX @@ -127,49 +154,40 @@ Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in {{?RFC8340}}. # Acronyms and Abbreviations APS: -: Automatic Protection Switching - -DS-TE: -: Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering +: Automatic Protection Switching {{?RFC7271}} GMPLS: -: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching +: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching {{?RFC3945}} LER: -: Label Edge Router +: Label Edge Router {{?RFC5921}} LSP: -: Label Switched Path +: Label Switched Path {{?RFC3031}} LSR: -: Label Switching Router +: Label Switching Router {{?RFC3031}} MPLS: -: Multiprotocol Label Switching +: Multiprotocol Label Switching {{?RFC3031}} NBMA: -: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access +: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access {{?RFC2328}} PM: -: Performance Metrics +: Performance Metrics {{?RFC2330}} RSVP: -: Resource Reservation Protocol - -SD: -: Signal Degrade - -SF: -: Signal Fail +: Resource Reservation Protocol {{?RFC2205}} SRLG: -: Shared Risk Link Group +: Shared Risk Link Group {{?RFC4203}} TE: -: Traffic Engineering +: Traffic Engineering {{?RFC9522}} WTR: -: Wait-to-Restore +: Wait-to-Restore {{?RFC6378}} # Overview {#overview} @@ -177,7 +195,7 @@ This document defines two YANG modules for common TE types: "ietf-te-types" ({{t ## TE Types Module Contents -The "ietf-te-types" module ({{te-yang-code}}) contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance. +The "ietf-te-types" module ({{te-yang-code}}) contains TE types that are commonly used across multiple TE technology-specific modules. ### Identities @@ -220,7 +238,7 @@ resource-affinities-type: path-metric-type: : A base identity for supported path metric types as defined in {{!RFC3630}}, {{!RFC3785}}, {{!RFC5440}}, {{!RFC7471}}, {{!RFC8233}}, {{!RFC8570}}, and {{?I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo}}. -: The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type. The derived identities SHOULD describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define. +: The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type. The derived identities MUST describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define. : For example, the measurement unit is not applicable for the number of hops metric ('path-metric-hop'). Conversely, the bound of the 'path-metric-loss', defined in 'ietf-te-packet-types', is defined in multiples of the basic unit 0.000003% as described in {{!RFC7471}} and {{!RFC8570}}. lsp-provisioning-error-reason: @@ -254,7 +272,7 @@ path-computation-error-no-dependent-server: The derived identities are defined in the "ietf-te-types" module, instead of an IANA-maintained module, because there are error reasons which are: 1. applicable only to the TE YANG modules and not to PCEP environments (e.g., path-computation-error-no-topology); -1. technology-specific (e.g., No RWA constraints met) which are better defined in technology-specific YANG modules; +1. technology-specific which are better defined in technology-specific YANG modules; 1. match more than one PCEP number in order to hide the details of the underlay PCE architecture (e.g., path-computation-error-no-dependent-server). #### Protocol Origin {#protocol-origin} @@ -283,7 +301,7 @@ te-global-id: : A type representing the identifier that uniquely identifies an operator, which can be either a provider or a client. The definition of this type is taken from {{Section 3 of !RFC6370}} and {{Section 3 of !RFC5003}}. This attribute type is used solely to provide a globally unique context for TE topologies. te-node-id: -: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4-octet in dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in full, mixed, shortened, or shortened-mixed IPv6 address notation. +: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4-octet in dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in an {{!RFC5952}} IPv6 address notation. : This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described in {{Section 2.4.1 of !RFC3630}}, the TE Router ID described in {{Section 6.2 of !RFC6827}}, the Traffic Engineering Router ID TLV described in {{Section 4.3 of !RFC5305}}, or the TE Router ID TLV described in {{Section 3.2.1 of !RFC6119}}. : The reachability of such a TE node MAY be achieved by a mechanism such as that described in {{Section 6.2 of !RFC6827}}. @@ -351,9 +369,9 @@ bc-model-type: : A base identity for supported Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints Models as defined in {{?RFC4125}}, {{?RFC4126}}, and {{?RFC4127}}. bandwidth-profile-type: -: A base identity for various bandwidth profiles, also known as traffic profiles in {{Section 2.3.2 of ?RFC2475}}, as specified in {{MEF_10.3}}, {{?RFC2697}} and {{?RFC2698}}, that may be used to specify the temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs). +: A base identity for various bandwidth profiles, also known as traffic profiles in {{Section 2.3.2 of ?RFC2475}}, that may be used to specify the temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs), e.g., as specified in {{MEF_10.3}}, {{?RFC2697}} and {{?RFC2698}}. -### Data Types +### Data TypesI The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG reusable data type: @@ -382,28 +400,34 @@ te-packet-link-bandwidth: The "ietf-te-types" module imports the following modules: -- "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in {{!RFC6991}} +- "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in {{!RFC9911}} - "ietf-routing-types" as defined in {{!RFC8294}} -In addition to {{!RFC6991}} and {{!RFC8294}}, this module references the following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: -{{?RFC9522}}, {{!RFC4090}}, {{!RFC4202}}, {{!RFC4328}}, {{!RFC4561}}, {{?RFC4657}}, {{?RFC4736}}, {{!RFC6004}}, {{!RFC6378}}, {{!RFC6511}}, {{!RFC7139}}, {{!RFC7271}}, {{!RFC7308}}, {{!RFC7551}}, {{!RFC7571}}, {{!RFC7579}}, and {{ITU-T_G.709}}. +- "ietf-network" and "ietf-network-topology" as defined in {{!RFC8345}} + +In addition to {{!RFC9911}} and {{!RFC8294}}, this module references the following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: +{{?RFC9522}}, {{!RFC4090}}, {{!RFC4202}}, {{!RFC4328}}, {{!RFC4561}}, {{?RFC4657}}, {{?RFC4736}}, {{!RFC6004}}, {{!RFC6378}}, {{!RFC6511}}, {{!RFC7139}}, {{!RFC7271}}, {{!RFC7308}}, {{!RFC7551}}, {{!RFC7571}}, {{!RFC7579}}, and {{ISOIEC_9899}}. ~~~~ yang {::include-fold ../../ietf-te-types.yang} ~~~~ {: #fig-te-yang title="TE Types YANG module" -sourcecode-markers="true" sourcecode-name="ietf-te-types@2025-12-19.yang"} +sourcecode-markers="true" sourcecode-name="ietf-te-types@2026-01-23.yang"} # Packet TE Types YANG Module {#pkt-yang-code} -The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types" module defined in {{te-yang-code}} of this document. +The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports the following modules: + +- "ietf-yang-types" as defined in {{!RFC9911}} + +- "ietf-te-types" as defined in {{te-yang-code}} of this document ~~~~ yang {::include-fold ../../ietf-te-packet-types.yang} ~~~~ {: #fig-pkt-yang title="Packet TE Types YANG module" -sourcecode-markers="true" sourcecode-name="ietf-te-packet-types@2025-12-19.yang"} +sourcecode-markers="true" sourcecode-name="ietf-te-packet-types@2026-01-15.yang"} # IANA Considerations @@ -464,15 +488,13 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide --- back -# The Complete Schema Trees +# The Complete Schema Trees {#yang-tree} This appendix presents the complete tree of the TE and Packet TE types data model. See {{?RFC8340}} for an explanation of the symbols used. The data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the corresponding line. -> Editors' Note: The YANG trees have been generated by pyang and have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC EDITOR. - ## TE Types Schema Tree ~~~~ ascii-art @@ -595,11 +617,11 @@ The following groupings, already defined in {{!RFC8776}}, have been updated in t - link-tp-id. - The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: +The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the presence of: - - node-id or node-id-uri; +- node-id or node-id-uri; - - link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. +- link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. - explicit-route-hop @@ -615,11 +637,11 @@ The following groupings, already defined in {{!RFC8776}}, have been updated in t - link-tp-id. - The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: +The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the presence of: - - node-id or node-id-uri; +- node-id or node-id-uri; - - link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. +- link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. - optimization-metric-entry: @@ -631,7 +653,7 @@ The following groupings, already defined in {{!RFC8776}}, have been updated in t - tunnel-constraints; - The following new leaf have been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: + The following new leaf has been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: - network-id; @@ -657,7 +679,7 @@ The following groupings, already defined in {{!RFC8776}}, have been updated in t - generic-path-optimization - The following new leaf have been added to the 'generic-path-optimization' grouping: + The following new leaf has been added to the 'generic-path-optimization' grouping: - tiebreaker; diff --git a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.txt b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.txt index f5c6da5..5ab3476 100644 --- a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.txt +++ b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.txt @@ -6,13 +6,13 @@ TEAS Working Group I. Busi Internet-Draft Huawei Obsoletes: 8776 (if approved) A. Guo Intended status: Standards Track Futurewei Technologies -Expires: 22 June 2026 X. Liu +Expires: 27 July 2026 X. Liu Alef Edge T. Saad Cisco Systems Inc. I. Bryskin Individual - 19 December 2025 + 23 January 2026 Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering @@ -43,19 +43,19 @@ Status of This Memo 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 22 June 2026. + This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 July 2026. Copyright Notice - Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the + Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 1] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 1] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal @@ -69,34 +69,50 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Table of Contents - 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1.3. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1. TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1.1. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 3.1.2. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 3.1.3. Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.2.1. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.2.2. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 - 3.2.3. Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 4. TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 5. Packet TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 - 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 - 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 - 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 - 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 - 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 - Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 - A.1. TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 - A.2. Packet TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 - Appendix B. Changes from RFC 8776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 - Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 - Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 + 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.1. Editorial Note (To be removed by Editors of this document + before sending it to the RFC Editor) . . . . . . . . . . 3 + 1.2. Editorial Note (To be removed by the RFC Editor) . . . . 3 + 1.2.1. References to RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 + 1.4. Prefixes in Data Node Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 1.5. Tree Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 + 3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.1. TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.1.1. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 + 3.1.2. Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 + 3.1.3. Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 3.2. Packet TE Types Module Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.2.1. Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.2.2. Data TypesI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 + 3.2.3. Groupings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 4. TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 5. Packet TE Types YANG Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 + 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 + 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 + 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 + 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 + 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 + Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 + A.1. TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 + A.2. Packet TE Types Schema Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 + Appendix B. Changes from RFC 8776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 + Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 + Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 + + + + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 2] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + 1. Introduction @@ -107,13 +123,6 @@ Table of Contents The YANG language supports a small set of built-in data types and provides mechanisms to derive other types from the built-in types. - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 2] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - This document introduces a collection of common data types derived from the built-in YANG data types. The derived data types, identities, and groupings are mainly designed to be the common @@ -134,105 +143,148 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 modules and obsoletes [RFC8776]. For further details, refer to Appendix B. -1.1. Terminology +1.1. Editorial Note (To be removed by Editors of this document before + sending it to the RFC Editor) - 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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all - capitals, as shown here. + Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed this + document is sent to the RFC Editor. - The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in - [RFC7950]. + The YANG trees in Appendix A have been generated by pyang and have + some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the + YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC Editor. -1.2. Prefixes in Data Node Names +1.2. Editorial Note (To be removed by the RFC Editor) + + Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to + publication. + + This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced + with finalized values at the time of publication. This note + summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 3] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - Names of data nodes and other data model objects are prefixed using - the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG imported - modules, as shown in Table 1. + Please apply the following replacements: + * XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this I-D + * draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 --> the draft + version and section number as in the latest version of + [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo] at the time this document is published as + an RFC + * 2026-01-15 --> the actual date of the publication of this document + * 2026-01-23 --> the actual date of the publication of this document +1.2.1. References to RFCs + This document references a huge number of RFCs only by the RFC number + which makes it really hard to follow. + A preference has been expressed to replace the references with the + RFC title in the text and just use RFC number as a reference. + For example: + In section 1 change: + Section 4.12 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis] and Section 4.13 of + [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. + to + Section 4.12 and Section 4.13 of YANG Data Models guidelines + document [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis]. + It is suggested that the RFC Editor and the tooling team identify a + way to expand the references as proposed in a programmatic way. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 3] +1.3. 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 + BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all + capitals, as shown here. + + The terminology for describing YANG data models is found in + [RFC7950]. + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 4] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +1.4. Prefixes in Data Node Names + Names of data nodes and other data model objects are prefixed using + the standard prefix associated with the corresponding YANG imported + modules, as shown in Table 1. +=================+======================+========================+ | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | +=================+======================+========================+ - | yang | ietf-yang-types | Section 3 of [RFC6991] | + | yang | ietf-yang-types | Section 3 of [RFC9911] | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ - | inet | ietf-inet-types | Section 4 of [RFC6991] | + | inet | ietf-inet-types | Section 4 of [RFC9911] | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ | rt-types | ietf-routing-types | [RFC8294] | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ - | te-types | ietf-te-types | RFCXXXX | + | te-types | ietf-te-types | RFC XXXX | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ - | te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | RFCXXXX | + | te-packet-types | ietf-te-packet-types | RFC XXXX | +-----------------+----------------------+------------------------+ Table 1: Prefixes and corresponding YANG modules - RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned - to this document. Please remove this note. - -1.3. Tree Diagrams +1.5. Tree Diagrams Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in [RFC8340]. 2. Acronyms and Abbreviations - APS: Automatic Protection Switching + APS: Automatic Protection Switching [RFC7271] - DS-TE: Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering + GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC3945] - GMPLS: Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching + LER: Label Edge Router [RFC5921] - LER: Label Edge Router + LSP: Label Switched Path [RFC3031] - LSP: Label Switched Path + LSR: Label Switching Router [RFC3031] - LSR: Label Switching Router + MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching [RFC3031] - MPLS: Multiprotocol Label Switching + NBMA: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access [RFC2328] - NBMA: Non-Broadcast Multi-Access + PM: Performance Metrics [RFC2330] - PM: Performance Metrics + RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol [RFC2205] - RSVP: Resource Reservation Protocol + SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group [RFC4203] - SD: Signal Degrade - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 4] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 5] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - - SF: Signal Fail +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - SRLG: Shared Risk Link Group - TE: Traffic Engineering + TE: Traffic Engineering [RFC9522] - WTR: Wait-to-Restore + WTR: Wait-to-Restore [RFC6378] 3. Overview @@ -243,9 +295,8 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 3.1. TE Types Module Contents - The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains common TE types that - are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control- - plane instance. + The "ietf-te-types" module (Section 4) contains TE types that are + commonly used across multiple TE technology-specific modules. 3.1.1. Identities @@ -274,18 +325,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 [RFC8800]. objective-function-type: A base identity for supported path + objective functions as defined in [RFC5541]. + te-tunnel-type: A base identity for supported TE tunnel types as + defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC4875]. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 5] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - objective functions as defined in [RFC5541]. +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 6] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - te-tunnel-type: A base identity for supported TE tunnel types as - defined in [RFC3209] and [RFC4875]. lsp-encoding-types: A base identity for supported LSP encoding types as defined in [RFC3471], [RFC4328], and [RFC6004]. These defined @@ -316,7 +367,7 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 [RFC8570], and [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo]. The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of - the path metric type. The derived identities SHOULD describe the + the path metric type. The derived identities MUST describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define. For example, the measurement unit is not applicable for the number @@ -330,18 +381,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reasons are defined in this document. path-computation-error-reason: A base identity for indicating path + computation error reasons as defined in Section 3.1.1.1. + protocol-origin-type: A base identity for the type of protocol + origin as defined in Section 3.1.1.2. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 6] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - computation error reasons as defined in Section 3.1.1.1. +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 7] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - protocol-origin-type: A base identity for the type of protocol - origin as defined in Section 3.1.1.2. svec-objective-function-type: A base identity for supported SVEC objective functions as defined in [RFC5541] and [RFC8685]. @@ -377,8 +428,8 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 1. applicable only to the TE YANG modules and not to PCEP environments (e.g., path-computation-error-no-topology); - 2. technology-specific (e.g., No RWA constraints met) which are - better defined in technology-specific YANG modules; + 2. technology-specific which are better defined in technology- + specific YANG modules; 3. match more than one PCEP number in order to hide the details of the underlay PCE architecture (e.g., path-computation-error-no- @@ -389,9 +440,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 7] + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 8] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 3.1.1.2. Protocol Origin @@ -428,8 +484,8 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 te-node-id: A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4-octet in - dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in full, mixed, shortened, or - shortened-mixed IPv6 address notation. + dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in an [RFC5952] IPv6 address + notation. This attribute MAY be mapped to the Router Address TLV described in Section 2.4.1 of [RFC3630], the TE Router ID described in @@ -445,9 +501,9 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 8] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 9] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 It is optional to have one or more prefixes at the beginning, @@ -501,9 +557,9 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 9] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 10] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 performance-metrics-throttle-container: A grouping that defines @@ -539,11 +595,11 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 bandwidth-profile-type: A base identity for various bandwidth profiles, also known as traffic profiles in Section 2.3.2 of - [RFC2475], as specified in [MEF_10.3], [RFC2697] and [RFC2698], - that may be used to specify the temporal properties of a packet - stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs). + [RFC2475], that may be used to specify the temporal properties of + a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs), e.g., as specified in + [MEF_10.3], [RFC2697] and [RFC2698]. -3.2.2. Data Types +3.2.2. Data TypesI The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG reusable data type: @@ -557,9 +613,9 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 10] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 11] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 3.2.3. Groupings @@ -595,17 +651,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 The "ietf-te-types" module imports the following modules: - * "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in [RFC6991] + * "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in [RFC9911] * "ietf-routing-types" as defined in [RFC8294] - In addition to [RFC6991] and [RFC8294], this module references the + * "ietf-network" and "ietf-network-topology" as defined in [RFC8345] + + In addition to [RFC9911] and [RFC8294], this module references the following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: [RFC9522], [RFC4090], [RFC4202], [RFC4328], [RFC4561], [RFC4657], [RFC4736], [RFC6004], [RFC6378], [RFC6511], [RFC7139], [RFC7271], - [RFC7308], [RFC7551], [RFC7571], [RFC7579], and [ITU-T_G.709]. - - + [RFC7308], [RFC7551], [RFC7571], [RFC7579], and [ISOIEC_9899]. @@ -613,12 +669,12 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 11] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 12] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - file "ietf-te-types@2025-12-19.yang" + file "ietf-te-types@2026-01-23.yang" module ietf-te-types { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types"; @@ -627,12 +683,12 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 4"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types, Section 4"; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3"; } import ietf-routing-types { prefix rt-types; @@ -669,9 +725,9 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 12] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 13] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 Editor: Xufeng Liu @@ -689,7 +745,7 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. - Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or @@ -706,11 +762,7 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; - // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number - // assigned to this document. - // Please remove this note. - - revision 2025-12-19 { + revision 2026-01-23 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - lsp-provisioning-error-reason; @@ -722,17 +774,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - link-path-metric-type; - link-metric-type and its derived identities; - path-computation-error-reason and its derived identities; + - protocol-origin-type and its derived identities; + - svec-objective-function-type and its derived identities; + - svec-metric-type and its derived identities. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 13] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 14] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - - protocol-origin-type and its derived identities; - - svec-objective-function-type and its derived identities; - - svec-metric-type and its derived identities. This revision adds the following new data types: - path-type. @@ -778,18 +830,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - updates the following leaves: - metric-type; - tunnel-constraints; + - adds the following leaves: + - network-id; + - path-constraints-route-objects: + - updates the following containers: -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 14] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 15] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - - adds the following leaves: - - network-id; - - path-constraints-route-objects: - - updates the following containers: - explicit-route-objects-always; - generic-path-metric-bounds: - updates the following leaves: @@ -811,13 +863,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - - // RFC Editor: Please replace the revision date above with the - // module publication date in the format is (year-month-day). - // Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned to - // this document. - // Please remove this note. - revision 2020-06-10 { description "Initial Version of TE types."; @@ -834,14 +879,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Indicates support for Point-to-Multipoint TE (P2MP-TE)."; reference "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 15] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for Point-to-Multipoint TE Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; } @@ -853,6 +890,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 16] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + feature extended-admin-groups { description "Indicates support for TE link extended administrative @@ -890,14 +935,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 feature path-optimization-objective-function { description "Indicates support for path optimization objective functions."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 16] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } /* @@ -909,6 +946,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Base identity for LSP provisioning errors."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 17] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity session-attributes-flags { description "Base identity for the RSVP-TE session attributes flags."; @@ -946,14 +991,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Requests FRR bandwidth protection on LSRs, if present."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 17] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; } @@ -965,6 +1002,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 4090: Fast Reroute Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Tunnels"; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 18] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } identity path-reevaluation-request { @@ -1002,14 +1047,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 undergoing establishment. This MAY also be used to specify the behavior of end-to-end - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 18] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - LSP recovery for established LSPs."; reference "RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS @@ -1021,6 +1058,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Explicit Route Object (ERO)"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 19] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity boundary-rerouting-desired { base lsp-attributes-flags; description @@ -1058,14 +1103,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 4920: Crankback Signaling Extensions for MPLS and GMPLS RSVP-TE - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 19] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - RFC 5420: Encoding of Attributes for MPLS LSP Establishment Using Resource Reservation Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) @@ -1077,6 +1114,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-attributes-flags; description "Indicates that LSP integrity is required."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 20] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + reference "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) for @@ -1114,14 +1159,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Indicates that the LSP MUST be provisioned in the control plane only."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 20] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - reference "RFC 6001: Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/MRN) @@ -1133,6 +1170,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-attributes-flags; description "Indicates that non-PHP (non-Penultimate Hop Popping) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 21] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + behavior for the LSP is desired."; reference "RFC 6511: Non-Penultimate Hop Popping Behavior and @@ -1170,14 +1215,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-attributes-flags; description "OAM Maintenance Entity Group End Point (MEP) entities - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 21] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - desired."; reference "RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, @@ -1189,6 +1226,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-attributes-flags; description "OAM Maintenance Entity Group Intermediate Points (MIP) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 22] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + entities desired."; reference "RFC 7260: GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, @@ -1226,14 +1271,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "P2MP-TE tree re-evaluation request."; reference "RFC 8149: RSVP Extensions for Reoptimization of Loosely - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 22] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Routed Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; } @@ -1246,6 +1283,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 8169: Residence Time Measurement in MPLS Networks"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 23] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity link-protection-type { description "Base identity for the link protection type."; @@ -1282,14 +1326,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity link-protection-shared { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 23] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base link-protection-type; description "'Shared' link protection type."; @@ -1302,6 +1338,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity link-protection-1-for-1 { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 24] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + base link-protection-type; description "'Dedicated 1:1' link protection type."; @@ -1338,14 +1382,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity association-type { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 24] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Base identity for the tunnel association."; } @@ -1358,6 +1394,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 25] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + Recovery RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions"; } @@ -1394,14 +1438,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 6780: RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions RFC 7551: RSVP-TE Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs)"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 25] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } identity association-type-diversity { @@ -1415,6 +1451,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Diversity Constraint Signaling"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 26] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity objective-function-type { description "Base identity for path objective function types."; @@ -1451,13 +1494,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 (PCEP)"; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 26] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity of-minimize-agg-bandwidth-consumption { base objective-function-type; status obsolete; @@ -1470,6 +1506,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 be used instead."; reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 27] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } @@ -1506,14 +1550,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity path-computation-method { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 27] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Base identity for supported path computation mechanisms."; } @@ -1526,6 +1562,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 9522: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering, Section 4.4"; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 28] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } identity path-externally-queried { @@ -1563,13 +1607,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Base identity for the LSP metric specification types."; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 28] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity lsp-metric-relative { base lsp-metric-type; description @@ -1581,6 +1618,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Protocol Generic Requirements"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 29] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity lsp-metric-absolute { base lsp-metric-type; description @@ -1618,14 +1663,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity te-tunnel-p2mp { base te-tunnel-type; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 29] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "TE P2MP tunnel type."; reference "RFC 4875: Extensions to Resource Reservation Protocol - @@ -1637,6 +1674,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity tunnel-action-type { description "Base identity from which specific tunnel action types + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 30] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + are derived."; } @@ -1674,14 +1719,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity te-action-fail { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 30] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base te-action-result; description "TE action failed."; @@ -1693,6 +1730,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "TE action is in progress."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 31] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity tunnel-admin-state-type { description "Base identity for TE tunnel administrative states."; @@ -1730,14 +1775,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Tunnel's state is up."; } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 31] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity tunnel-state-down { base tunnel-state-type; description @@ -1749,6 +1786,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Base identity for TE LSP states."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 32] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity lsp-path-computing { base lsp-state-type; description @@ -1786,14 +1831,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity lsp-state-up { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 32] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base lsp-state-type; description "State is up."; @@ -1805,6 +1842,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "State is being torn down."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 33] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity lsp-state-down { base lsp-state-type; description @@ -1842,14 +1887,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity lsp-restoration-restore-none { base lsp-restoration-type; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 33] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "No LSP affected by a failure is restored."; } @@ -1861,6 +1898,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity lsp-restoration-restore-all { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 34] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + base lsp-restoration-type; description "Affected LSPs are restored after all LSPs of the tunnel are @@ -1898,25 +1943,25 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base restoration-scheme-type; description "Restoration LSP is precomputed, but not presignalled nor - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 34] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - preconfigured, prior to the failure. This restoration scheme is also known as 'Full LSP Re-routing', with the alternate route being - pre-computed and stored for use when the failure occurs."; + precomputed and stored for use when the failure occurs."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Recovery, section 11"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 35] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity restoration-scheme-presignaled { base restoration-scheme-type; description @@ -1954,14 +1999,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-protection-type; status obsolete; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 35] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "'(Full) Rerouting' LSP protection type. This identity has been obsoleted: the @@ -1974,6 +2011,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Recovery, section 11"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 36] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity lsp-protection-reroute { base lsp-protection-type; status obsolete; @@ -2010,14 +2054,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity lsp-protection-unidir-1-plus-1 { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 36] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base lsp-protection-type; description "'1+1 Unidirectional Protection' LSP protection type."; @@ -2030,6 +2066,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity lsp-protection-bidir-1-plus-1 { base lsp-protection-type; description + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 37] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "'1+1 Bidirectional Protection' LSP protection type."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End @@ -2066,14 +2110,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity signal-fail-of-protection { base lsp-protection-state; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 37] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "The protection transport entity has a signal fail condition that is of higher priority than the forced switchover command."; @@ -2086,6 +2122,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity lockout-of-protection { base lsp-protection-state; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 38] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "A Loss of Protection (LoP) command is active."; reference @@ -2122,14 +2166,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-protection-state; description "There is a signal degrade condition on either the working - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 38] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - path or the protection path."; reference "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection @@ -2142,6 +2178,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base lsp-protection-state; description "A manual switchover command is active."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 39] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + reference "RFC 6378: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection RFC 4427: Recovery (Protection and Restoration) Terminology @@ -2178,14 +2222,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "LSP protection is not working because of a protocol failure condition."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 39] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 7271: MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport @@ -2198,6 +2234,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity protection-external-commands { description "Base identity from which protection-related external commands + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 40] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + used for troubleshooting purposes are derived."; } @@ -2234,14 +2278,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity action-lockout-of-normal { base protection-external-commands; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 40] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "A temporary configuration action initiated by an operator command to ensure that the normal traffic is not allowed to use the protection transport entity."; @@ -2254,6 +2290,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 (GMPLS)"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 41] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity clear-lockout-of-normal { base protection-external-commands; description @@ -2290,14 +2334,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "A switchover action initiated by an operator command to switch the Extra-Traffic signal, the normal traffic signal, or the null signal to the protection transport entity, - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 41] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - unless a switchover command of equal or higher priority is in effect."; reference @@ -2310,6 +2346,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity action-manual-switch { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 42] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + base protection-external-commands; description "A switchover action initiated by an operator command to @@ -2346,14 +2390,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity clear { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 42] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base protection-external-commands; description "An action that clears the active near-end lockout of a @@ -2366,6 +2402,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 (GMPLS)"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 43] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity switching-capabilities { description "Base identity for interface switching capabilities."; @@ -2402,14 +2446,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Signaling Functional Description"; } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 43] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity switching-tdm { base switching-capabilities; description @@ -2422,6 +2458,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity switching-otn { base switching-capabilities; description + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 44] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "OTN-TDM capable."; reference "RFC 7138: Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF for GMPLS @@ -2458,14 +2502,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity lsp-encoding-types { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 44] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Base identity for encoding types."; reference @@ -2478,6 +2514,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Packet LSP encoding."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 45] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description"; } @@ -2514,14 +2558,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Digital Wrapper LSP encoding."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 45] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 3471: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description"; } @@ -2535,6 +2571,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Signaling Functional Description"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 46] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity lsp-encoding-fiber { base lsp-encoding-types; description @@ -2570,14 +2613,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 4328: Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 46] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Networks Control"; } @@ -2591,6 +2626,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Switching"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 47] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity path-signaling-type { description "Base identity from which specific LSP path setup types @@ -2626,14 +2669,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity path-scope-segment { base path-scope-type; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 47] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "Path scope segment."; reference "RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery"; @@ -2647,6 +2682,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 4873: GMPLS Segment Recovery"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 48] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity route-usage-type { description "Base identity for route usage."; @@ -2682,14 +2725,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 4874: Exclude Routes - Extension to Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE)"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 48] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } identity path-metric-optimization-type { @@ -2703,6 +2738,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Base identity used to define the link and the path metric types. + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 49] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type and the derived identities SHOULD describe the unit of the path metric types they @@ -2738,14 +2781,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity link-metric-delay-average { base link-metric-type; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 49] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of microseconds."; @@ -2759,11 +2794,19 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity link-metric-delay-minimum { base link-metric-type; description - "Minimum unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of - microseconds."; - reference - "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric - Extensions, Section 4.2 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 50] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + + "Minimum unidirectional Link Delay, measured in units of + microseconds."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric + Extensions, Section 4.2 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.2"; } @@ -2795,13 +2838,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Extensions, Section 4.5"; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 50] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity path-metric-type { base link-path-metric-type; base path-metric-optimization-type; @@ -2814,6 +2850,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Traffic Engineering (TE) Path Metric."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 51] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 5440: Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP), Section 7.8"; } @@ -2850,14 +2894,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity path-metric-delay-minimum { base path-metric-type; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 51] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "The Path Min Delay Metric, measured in units of microseconds."; @@ -2868,13 +2904,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2"; } - // RFC Editor: Please replace the section and draft version in the - // reference to draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29 above with the latest - // version at the time the RFC is published. - // Please remove this note. - identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth { base path-metric-type; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 52] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "The Path Residual Bandwidth, defined as the minimum Link Residual Bandwidth all the links along the path. @@ -2907,13 +2946,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Base identity for the path tiebreaker type."; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 52] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity path-tiebreaker-minfill { base path-tiebreaker-type; description @@ -2930,6 +2962,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity path-tiebreaker-random { base path-tiebreaker-type; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 53] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "Random LSP path placement."; } @@ -2962,14 +3002,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels RFC 2702: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 53] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } identity resource-aff-exclude-any { @@ -2986,6 +3018,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Base identity for the TE optimization criteria."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 54] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 9522: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering"; } @@ -3018,14 +3058,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity path-computation-srlg-type { description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 54] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "Base identity for Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) path computation."; } @@ -3042,6 +3074,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Includes a strict Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) check in the path computation."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 55] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } identity srlg-preferred { @@ -3074,14 +3114,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity path-computation-error-no-topology { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 55] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base path-computation-error-reason; description "Path computation has failed because there is no topology @@ -3098,6 +3130,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 a Backward-Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) downstream PCE or a child PCE."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 56] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 5441: A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained Inter-Domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched @@ -3130,14 +3170,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity path-computation-error-destination-unknown-in-domain { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 56] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base path-computation-error-reason; description "Path computation has failed because the destination node is @@ -3154,6 +3186,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 57] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity path-computation-error-no-resource { base path-computation-error-reason; description @@ -3186,14 +3226,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 57] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } identity path-computation-error-destination-domain-unknown { @@ -3210,6 +3242,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 58] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + /pcep.xhtml#no-path-vector-tlv"; } @@ -3242,14 +3282,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 5557: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 58] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Support of Global Concurrent Optimization https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep @@ -3266,6 +3298,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV."; reference "RFC 5557: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 59] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + (PCEP) Requirements and Protocol Extensions in Support of Global Concurrent Optimization @@ -3298,14 +3338,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 It corresponds to bit 28 of the Flags field of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 59] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - reference "RFC 5441: A Backward-Recursive PCE-Based Computation (BRPC) Procedure to Compute Shortest Constrained @@ -3322,6 +3354,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Path computation has failed because source node is unknown. + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 60] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + It corresponds to bit 29 of the Flags field of the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV."; reference @@ -3354,14 +3394,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } identity protocol-origin-api { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 60] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - base protocol-origin-type; description "Protocol origin is via Application Programming Interface @@ -3378,6 +3410,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Protocol (PCEP)"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 61] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity protocol-origin-bgp { base protocol-origin-type; description @@ -3410,14 +3450,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Objective function for minimizing the load on the link that is carrying the highest load (MLL)."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 61] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol @@ -3435,6 +3467,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 (PCEP)"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 62] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity svec-of-minimize-common-transit-domain { base svec-objective-function-type; description @@ -3466,14 +3505,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 8685: Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions for the Hierarchical Path Computation Element (H-PCE) Architecture."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 62] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } identity svec-of-minimize-shared-nodes { @@ -3491,6 +3522,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Base identity for SVEC metric type."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 63] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)"; } @@ -3522,14 +3561,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 63] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - (PCEP)"; } @@ -3547,6 +3578,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base svec-metric-type; description "Load of the most loaded link."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 64] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + reference "RFC 5541: Encoding of Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol @@ -3579,13 +3618,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Engineering (MPLS-TE)"; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 64] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - typedef admin-groups { type union { type admin-group; @@ -3602,6 +3634,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 representation in 'hex-string' type. The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 65] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + to the left in the byte sequence. Leading zero bytes in the configured value may be omitted @@ -3634,14 +3674,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 enum normal { value 1; description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 65] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "Normal. Indicates that the anomalous bit is not set."; @@ -3658,6 +3690,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Indicates whether a performance metric is normal (anomalous bit not set), abnormal (anomalous bit set), or unknown."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 66] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric @@ -3690,14 +3730,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "In some test mode."; } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 66] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - enum preparing-maintenance { description "The resource is disabled in the control plane to prepare @@ -3714,6 +3746,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 enum unknown { description "Status is unknown."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 67] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } } description @@ -3737,28 +3777,21 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 It is a string containing a list of numbers separated by commas, where each of these numbers can be non-negative - decimal, hex integer, or hex float: + decimal, hex integer, or hex float, as defined in + ISO/IEC 9899: (dec | hex | float)[*(','(dec | hex | float))] - For the packet-switching type, the string encoding may follow + For the packet-switching type, the string encoding MUST follow the type 'bandwidth-ieee-float32' as defined in RFC 8294 (e.g., 0x1p10), where the units are in bytes per second. Canonically, the string is represented as all lowercase and in - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 67] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - hex, where the prefix '0x' precedes the hex number."; reference - "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area - ITU-T G.709: Interfaces for the optical transport network - - Edition 6.0 (06/2020)"; + "ISO/IEC 9899:2024: Information Technology - Programming + Languages - C, Section 6.4.4.2 + RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area"; } typedef te-ds-class { @@ -3769,6 +3802,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "The Differentiated Services Class-Type of traffic."; reference "RFC 4124: Protocol Extensions for Support of Diffserv-aware + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 68] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + MPLS Traffic Engineering, Section 4.3.1"; } @@ -3802,14 +3843,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Enumerated type for specifying loose or strict paths."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 68] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, Section 4.3.3"; } @@ -3825,8 +3858,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "The link is multi-access, including broadcast and NBMA."; } } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 69] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description - "Defines a type representing the access type of a TE link."; + "The access types of a TE link."; reference "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"; @@ -3858,14 +3899,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 enum outgoing { description "The explicit route represents an outgoing link on - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 69] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - a node."; } } @@ -3881,6 +3914,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2, Section 2.5.5 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 70] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + RFC 5305: IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Engineering, Section 3.7"; } @@ -3914,14 +3955,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Section 4.3 RFC 6119: IPv6 Traffic Engineering in IS-IS, Section 3.2.1 RFC 6827: Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 70] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols, Section 3"; } @@ -3937,9 +3970,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Defines a type representing the administrative status of a TE resource."; - } - typedef te-path-disjointness { + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 71] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + + } + + typedef te-path-disjointness { type bits { bit node { position 0; @@ -3970,14 +4011,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 enum normal { description "Both the recovery span and the working span are fully - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 71] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - allocated and active, data traffic is being transported over (or selected from) the working span, and no trigger events are reported."; @@ -3993,6 +4026,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 The working span has reported a failure/degrade condition, and the user traffic is being transported (or selected) on the recovery span."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 72] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } enum recovery-failed { description @@ -4026,14 +4067,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "The recovery domain is recovering from a failure/degrade condition on the working span that is being controlled by the Wait-to-Restore (WTR) timer."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 72] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } } description @@ -4049,6 +4082,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 type string { pattern '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*'; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 73] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "A type for the name of a TE node template or TE link template."; @@ -4082,14 +4123,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 length "0"; // empty string } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 73] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - type string { pattern '([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+:)*' + '/?([a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)(/[a-zA-Z0-9\-_.]+)*'; @@ -4105,6 +4138,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 'ietf-network' module in RFC 8345, to help the user better understand the topology before further inquiry is made."; reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 74] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "RFC 8345: A YANG Data Model for Network Topologies"; } @@ -4138,14 +4179,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } enum primary-reverse-path { description - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 74] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "Indicates that the TE path is a primary reverse path."; } enum secondary-reverse-path { @@ -4161,6 +4194,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 /* * TE bandwidth groupings + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 75] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + */ grouping te-bandwidth { @@ -4194,14 +4235,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } } } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 75] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } /* @@ -4217,6 +4250,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 For unspecified technologies, 'rt-types:generalized-label' is used."; container te-label { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 76] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "Container that specifies the TE label. @@ -4250,14 +4291,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "TE topology identifier container."; leaf provider-id { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 76] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - type te-global-id; default "0"; description @@ -4273,6 +4306,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 If omitted, it assumes that the topology client ID value = 0 (the default)."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 77] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + leaf topology-id { type te-topology-id; default ""; @@ -4306,14 +4347,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 leaf one-way-delay { type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 77] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - } units "microseconds"; description @@ -4329,6 +4362,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping performance-metrics-two-way-delay-loss { description "Performance Metrics (PM) information in real time that can be + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 78] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + applicable to links or connections. PM defined in this grouping are applicable to generic TE PM @@ -4362,14 +4403,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 PM defined in this grouping are applicable to generic TE PM as well as packet TE PM."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 78] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly @@ -4385,6 +4418,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 provides an aggregated remainder across QoS classes."; reference "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 79] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + Version 2"; } leaf one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality { @@ -4418,14 +4459,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Bandwidth utilization that represents the actual utilization of the link (i.e., as measured in the router). - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 79] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations."; } @@ -4440,6 +4473,20 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping one-way-performance-metrics { description "One-way Performance Metrics (PM) throttle grouping."; + reference + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 80] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions"; leaf one-way-delay { type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; @@ -4474,14 +4521,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 the sum of the component link available bandwidths."; } leaf one-way-utilized-bandwidth { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 80] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - type rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32; units "bytes per second"; default "0x0p0"; @@ -4491,11 +4530,25 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 For a bundled link, bandwidth utilization is defined to be the sum of the component link bandwidth utilizations."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 81] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } grouping two-way-performance-metrics { description "Two-way Performance Metrics (PM) throttle grouping."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions"; leaf two-way-delay { type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; @@ -4530,17 +4583,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 uses performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss; uses performance-metrics-one-way-bandwidth; } + container performance-metrics-two-way { + description + "Two-way link performance information in real time."; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 81] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 82] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - container performance-metrics-two-way { - description - "Two-way link performance information in real time."; reference "RFC 6374: Packet Loss and Delay Measurement for MPLS Networks"; @@ -4586,17 +4639,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 leaf advertisement-interval { type uint32; units "seconds"; + default "0"; + description + "Interval to advertise the extended metric values."; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 82] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 83] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - default "0"; - description - "Interval to advertise the extended metric values."; } leaf suppression-interval { type uint32 { @@ -4642,17 +4695,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 /* * TE tunnel generic groupings + */ + + grouping explicit-route-hop { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 83] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 84] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - */ - grouping explicit-route-hop { description "The explicit route entry grouping."; choice type { @@ -4698,17 +4751,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "RFC 3209: RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels, Section 4.3, EXPLICIT_ROUTE in RSVP-TE RFC 3477: Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource + ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering + (RSVP-TE)"; + leaf link-tp-id { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 84] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 85] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering - (RSVP-TE)"; - leaf link-tp-id { type te-tp-id; mandatory true; description @@ -4755,15 +4808,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "TE LTP identifier. + The combination of the TE link ID and the TE node ID + is used to identify an unnumbered TE link."; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 85] + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 86] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - The combination of the TE link ID and the TE node ID - is used to identify an unnumbered TE link."; } leaf node-id-uri { type nw:node-id; @@ -4810,16 +4864,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 case label { description "The label explicit route hop type."; + container label-hop { + description -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 86] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 87] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - container label-hop { - description "Label hop type."; uses te-label; } @@ -4866,16 +4920,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 The order of entries is defined by the user without relying on key values."; + } + choice type { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 87] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 88] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - } - choice type { description "The Record Route entry type."; case numbered-node-hop { @@ -4922,16 +4976,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 mandatory true; description "Numbered TE LTP identifier."; + } + leaf-list flags { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 88] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 89] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - } - leaf-list flags { type path-attribute-flags; description "Path attributes flags."; @@ -4978,16 +5032,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 type nw:node-id; description "The identifier of a node in the topology."; + } + leaf node-id { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 89] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 90] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - } - leaf node-id { type te-node-id; description "The identifier of a node in the TE topology."; @@ -5034,16 +5088,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 leaf restriction { type enumeration { enum inclusive { + description + "The label or label range is inclusive."; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 90] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 91] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - description - "The label or label range is inclusive."; } enum exclusive { description @@ -5090,16 +5144,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 + " (../label-start/te-label/direction = 'forward'))" + " or " + "(not(../label-start/te-label/direction) and" + + " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" { + error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the " -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 91] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 92] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - + " (te-label/direction = 'forward'))" { - error-message "'label-start' and 'label-end' must have the " + "same direction."; } description @@ -5146,16 +5200,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 labels in the range are available. In case the restriction is 'exclusive', the bit-position is + set if the corresponding mapped label is not available. + In this case, if the range-bitmap is not present, all the -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 92] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 93] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - set if the corresponding mapped label is not available. - In this case, if the range-bitmap is not present, all the labels in the range are not available. The most significant byte in the hex-string is the farthest @@ -5202,16 +5256,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping optimization-metric-entry { description "Optimization metrics configuration grouping."; + leaf metric-type { + type identityref { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 93] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 94] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - leaf metric-type { - type identityref { base path-metric-optimization-type; } description @@ -5258,16 +5312,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 in the computed path."; reference "RFC 4202: Routing Extensions in Support of + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching + (GMPLS)"; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 94] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 95] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching - (GMPLS)"; } leaf setup-priority { type uint8 { @@ -5314,16 +5368,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping path-constraints-route-objects { description + "List of route entries to be included or excluded when + performing the path computation."; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 95] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 96] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - "List of route entries to be included or excluded when - performing the path computation."; container explicit-route-objects { description "Container for the explicit route object lists."; @@ -5370,16 +5424,15 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } default "te-types:route-include-object"; description + "Indicates whether to include or exclude the + route object. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 96] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 97] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - "Indicates whether to include or exclude the - route object. The default is to include it."; } @@ -5426,17 +5479,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 leaf index { type uint32; description + "Route object entry index. + The index is used to identify an entry in the list. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 97] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "Route object entry index. +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 98] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - The index is used to identify an entry in the list. The order of entries is defined by the user without relying on key values."; @@ -5482,18 +5534,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 path metrics. TE paths which have at least one path metric which + exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT be selected. + + TE paths that traverse TE links which have at least one + link metric which exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 98] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 99] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT be selected. - TE paths that traverse TE links which have at least one - link metric which exceeds the specified bounds MUST NOT be selected."; leaf metric-type { type identityref { @@ -5538,18 +5590,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "TE path metric type."; uses optimization-metric-entry; } + /* Tiebreakers */ + container tiebreakers { + status deprecated; + description -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 99] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 100] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - /* Tiebreakers */ - container tiebreakers { - status deprecated; - description "Container for the list of tiebreakers. This container has been deprecated by the tiebreaker @@ -5594,18 +5646,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 leaf tiebreaker { type identityref { base path-tiebreaker-type; + } + default "te-types:path-tiebreaker-random"; + description + "The tiebreaker criteria to apply on an equally favored set -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 100] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 101] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - } - default "te-types:path-tiebreaker-random"; - description - "The tiebreaker criteria to apply on an equally favored set of paths, in order to pick the best."; } } @@ -5650,18 +5702,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base resource-affinities-type; } description + "Identifies an entry in the list of named affinity + constraints."; + } + list affinity-name { -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 101] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 102] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - "Identifies an entry in the list of named affinity - constraints."; - } - list affinity-name { key "name"; description "List of named affinities."; @@ -5706,18 +5758,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Container for the list of named Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs)."; list path-srlgs-name { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 102] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - key "usage"; description "List of named Shared Risk Link Groups (SRLGs) to be included or excluded."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 103] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + leaf usage { type identityref { base route-usage-type; @@ -5762,18 +5814,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping generic-path-constraints { description "Global named path constraints configuration grouping."; + container path-constraints { + description + "TE named path constraints container."; + uses common-path-constraints-attributes; -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 103] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 104] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - container path-constraints { - description - "TE named path constraints container."; - uses common-path-constraints-attributes; uses generic-path-disjointness; } } @@ -5819,16 +5871,17 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Route object entry index. + The index is used to identify an entry in the list. + The order of entries is defined by the user without -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 104] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - The index is used to identify an entry in the list. +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 105] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + - The order of entries is defined by the user without relying on key values."; } uses explicit-route-hop; @@ -5875,15 +5928,15 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "The identifier of the node. + It can be represented as IP address or dotted quad address + or as a URI. -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 105] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 106] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - It can be represented as IP address or dotted quad address - or as an URI. The type data node disambiguates the union type."; } @@ -5913,10 +5966,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 5. Packet TE Types YANG Module - The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types" - module defined in Section 4 of this document. + The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports the following modules: - file "ietf-te-packet-types@2025-12-19.yang" + * "ietf-yang-types" as defined in [RFC9911] + + * "ietf-te-types" as defined in Section 4 of this document + + file "ietf-te-packet-types@2026-01-15.yang" module ietf-te-packet-types { yang-version 1.1; namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types"; @@ -5925,7 +5981,7 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types"; } import ietf-te-types { prefix te-types; @@ -5933,18 +5989,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 106] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 107] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number - // assigned to this document. - // Please remove this note. - organization "IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working Group"; @@ -5980,33 +6032,32 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. - Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, is permitted pursuant to, and subject to the license terms contained in, the Revised BSD License set + forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions + Relating to IETF Documents + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 107] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 108] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - forth in Section 4.c of the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions - Relating to IETF Documents - (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; - // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number - // assigned to this document. - // Please remove this note. + // RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication + // and remove this note. - revision 2025-12-19 { + revision 2026-01-15 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - bandwidth-profile-type; @@ -6024,13 +6075,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 reference "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - - // RFC Editor: Please replace the revision date above with the - // module publication date in the format is (year-month-day). - // Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned to - // this document. - // Please remove this note. - revision 2020-06-10 { description "Latest revision of TE MPLS types."; @@ -6042,14 +6086,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * Identities */ - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 108] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity bandwidth-profile-type { description "Bandwidth Profile Types"; @@ -6063,6 +6099,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3"; } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 109] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + identity rfc-2697 { base bandwidth-profile-type; description @@ -6098,14 +6141,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "The Unidirectional Link Loss Metric, measured in units of 0.000003%."; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 109] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - reference "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions, Section 4.4 @@ -6119,6 +6154,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 base te-types:path-metric-type; description "The Path Delay Variation Metric, + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 110] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + measured in units of microseconds."; reference "RFC 8233: Extensions to the Path Computation Element @@ -6155,13 +6198,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Backup offers node (preferred) or link protection."; } - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 110] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - identity bc-model-type { description "Base identity for the Diffserv-TE Bandwidth Constraints @@ -6174,6 +6210,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 identity bc-model-rdm { base bc-model-type; description + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 111] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model type."; reference "RFC 4127: Russian Dolls Bandwidth Constraints Model for @@ -6210,14 +6254,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Bandwidth value is explicitly specified."; } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 111] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - enum specified-profile { description "Bandwidth profile is explicitly specified."; @@ -6230,6 +6266,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Enumerated type for specifying whether bandwidth is explicitly specified or automatically computed."; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 112] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } typedef te-class-type { @@ -6266,14 +6310,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 typedef bandwidth-mbps { type uint64; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 112] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - units "megabits per second"; description "Bandwidth values, expressed in megabits per second."; @@ -6286,6 +6322,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Bandwidth values, expressed in gigabits per second."; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 113] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + /* * Groupings */ @@ -6322,14 +6366,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; } - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 113] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - units "microseconds"; description "One-way maximum delay or latency."; @@ -6342,6 +6378,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } leaf one-way-delay-variation { type uint32 { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 114] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + range "0..16777215"; } units "microseconds"; @@ -6378,14 +6422,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 The finest precision is 0.000003%."; reference "RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 114] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Extensions, Section 4.4"; } leaf one-way-packet-loss-normality { @@ -6398,6 +6434,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Extensions RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 115] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; @@ -6434,14 +6478,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 115] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Using TE Metric Extensions"; } leaf two-way-max-delay { @@ -6454,6 +6490,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "Two-way maximum delay or latency."; } leaf two-way-max-delay-normality { + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 116] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + type te-types:performance-metrics-normality; default "normal"; description @@ -6490,14 +6534,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 116] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions"; } @@ -6510,6 +6546,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 default "0"; description "Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 117] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is 0.000003%."; @@ -6546,14 +6590,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 "One-way maximum delay or latency."; } leaf one-way-delay-variation { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 117] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; } @@ -6566,6 +6602,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 type decimal64 { fraction-digits 6; range "0..50.331642"; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 118] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } units "percent"; default "0"; @@ -6602,14 +6646,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } leaf one-way-delay-variation { type yang:gauge64; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 118] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - units "microseconds"; description "One-way delay variation."; @@ -6622,6 +6658,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 fraction-digits 5; range "0..100"; } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 119] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "The ratio of packets dropped to packets transmitted between two endpoints."; @@ -6658,14 +6702,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } units "microseconds"; default "0"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 119] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Two-way delay variation."; } @@ -6678,6 +6714,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 default "0"; description "Two-way packet loss as a percentage of the total traffic + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 120] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + sent over a configurable interval. The finest precision is 0.000003%."; @@ -6714,14 +6758,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 description "Two-way delay variation."; reference - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 120] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - "RFC 5481: Packet Delay Variation Applicability Statement"; } leaf two-way-packet-loss { @@ -6735,6 +6771,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 } } + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 121] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + grouping performance-metrics-throttle-container-packet { description "Packet Performance Metrics (PM) threshold grouping."; @@ -6765,25 +6808,32 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 grouping bandwidth-profile-parameters { description - "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles in packet - networks."; + "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles, also known as + traffic profiles in RFC 2475, that may be used to specify the + temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs), + e.g., as specified in MEF 10, RFC 2697 or RFC 2698."; + reference + "RFC 2475: An Architecture for Differentiated Services + MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3 + RFC 2697: A Single Rate Three Color Marker + RFC 2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker"; leaf cir { type uint64; units "bits per second"; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 121] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - description "Committed Information Rate (CIR)."; } leaf cbs { type uint64; units "bytes"; + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 122] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + description "Committed Burst Size (CBS)."; } @@ -6826,20 +6876,20 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 specified or automatically computed."; } leaf set-bandwidth { - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 122] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - when "../specification-type = 'specified-value'" { description "When the bandwidth value is explicitly specified."; } type bandwidth-kbps; description + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 123] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + "Set the bandwidth value explicitly, e.g., using offline calculation."; } @@ -6883,18 +6933,19 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 explicitly, then this will match the value of the set-bandwidth leaf. - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 123] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - In the cases where the bandwidth is dynamically computed by the system, the current value of the bandwidth should be reflected."; } } + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 124] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + } grouping te-packet-link-bandwidth { @@ -6929,23 +6980,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 the "YANG Module Names" registry [RFC6020][RFC9890] within the "YANG Parameters" registry group. - - - - - - - - - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 124] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - name: ietf-te-types Maintained by IANA? N namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-types @@ -6958,8 +6992,15 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 prefix: te-packet-types reference: RFC XXXX - RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned - to this document. Please remove this note. + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 125] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + 7. Security Considerations @@ -6995,22 +7036,27 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 8.1. Normative References + [ISOIEC_9899] + International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and + International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), + "Information Technology - Programming Languages - C", ISO/ + IEC 9899:2024 , October 2024, + . + [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate + Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, + . -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 125] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - [ITU-T_G.709] - International Telecommunication Union, "Interfaces for the - optical transport network", ITU-T G.709 , June 2020, - . - [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate - Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, - DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 126] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + [RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V., and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP @@ -7048,16 +7094,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC4124, June 2005, . - - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 126] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - [RFC4202] Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 4202, DOI 10.17487/RFC4202, October 2005, @@ -7068,6 +7104,16 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005, . + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 127] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + [RFC4328] Papadimitriou, D., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC 4328, @@ -7106,20 +7152,24 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Aggregation", RFC 5003, DOI 10.17487/RFC5003, September 2007, . - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 127] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - [RFC5150] Ayyangar, A., Kompella, K., Vasseur, JP., and A. Farrel, "Label Switched Path Stitching with Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (GMPLS TE)", RFC 5150, DOI 10.17487/RFC5150, February 2008, . + + + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 128] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + [RFC5151] Farrel, A., Ed., Ayyangar, A., and JP. Vasseur, "Inter- Domain MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering -- Resource Reservation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) @@ -7159,22 +7209,22 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC5520, April 2009, . + [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of + Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element + Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009, + . -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 128] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 129] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - [RFC5541] Le Roux, JL., Vasseur, JP., and Y. Lee, "Encoding of - Objective Functions in the Path Computation Element - Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5541, - DOI 10.17487/RFC5541, June 2009, - . [RFC5557] Lee, Y., Le Roux, JL., King, D., and E. Oki, "Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) @@ -7187,6 +7237,11 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC5712, January 2010, . + [RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 + Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, + DOI 10.17487/RFC5952, August 2010, + . + [RFC6001] Papadimitriou, D., Vigoureux, M., Shiomoto, K., Brungard, D., and JL. Le Roux, "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocol Extensions for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks (MLN/ @@ -7221,9 +7276,10 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 129] + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 130] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 [RFC6370] Bocci, M., Swallow, G., and E. Gray, "MPLS Transport @@ -7257,10 +7313,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC6827, January 2013, . - [RFC6991] Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", - RFC 6991, DOI 10.17487/RFC6991, July 2013, - . - [RFC7074] Berger, L. and J. Meuric, "Revised Definition of the GMPLS Switching Capability and Type Fields", RFC 7074, DOI 10.17487/RFC7074, November 2013, @@ -7272,22 +7324,20 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Networks", RFC 7138, DOI 10.17487/RFC7138, March 2014, . + [RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., + and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control + of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, + DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, + . - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 130] +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 131] -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 - [RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., - and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control - of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, - DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, - . - [RFC7260] Takacs, A., Fedyk, D., and J. He, "GMPLS RSVP-TE Extensions for Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) Configuration", RFC 7260, DOI 10.17487/RFC7260, June @@ -7327,17 +7377,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 RFC 7571, DOI 10.17487/RFC7571, July 2015, . - - - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 131] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - [RFC7579] Bernstein, G., Ed., Lee, Y., Ed., Li, D., Imajuku, W., and J. Han, "General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS-Controlled Networks", RFC 7579, @@ -7348,6 +7387,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 RFC 7950, DOI 10.17487/RFC7950, August 2016, . + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 132] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + [RFC8001] Zhang, F., Ed., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Margaria, C., Hartley, M., and Z. Ali, "RSVP-TE Extensions for Collecting Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG) Information", @@ -7387,13 +7433,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC8306, November 2017, . - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 132] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - [RFC8341] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "Network Configuration Access Control Model", STD 91, RFC 8341, DOI 10.17487/RFC8341, March 2018, @@ -7404,6 +7443,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Network Topologies", RFC 8345, DOI 10.17487/RFC8345, March 2018, . + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 133] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + [RFC8570] Ginsberg, L., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and Q. Wu, "IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions", RFC 8570, DOI 10.17487/RFC8570, March @@ -7437,23 +7483,28 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 DOI 10.17487/RFC9890, October 2025, . + [RFC9911] Schönwälder, J., Ed., "Common YANG Data Types", RFC 9911, + DOI 10.17487/RFC9911, December 2025, + . + 8.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis] Bierman, A., Boucadair, M., and Q. Wu, "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data + Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- + netmod-rfc8407bis-28, 5 June 2025, + . -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 133] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - Models", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- - netmod-rfc8407bis-28, 5 June 2025, - . +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 134] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + [I-D.ietf-pce-sid-algo] Sidor, S., Rose, Z., Peng, S., Peng, S., and A. Stone, @@ -7468,6 +7519,20 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 . + [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. + Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 + Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, + September 1997, . + + [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2328, April 1998, + . + + [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, + "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, + DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, + . + [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC2475, December 1998, @@ -7486,25 +7551,35 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 RFC 2702, DOI 10.17487/RFC2702, September 1999, . - [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, - DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, - . - [RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth - Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic - Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005, - . +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 135] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 134] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 + [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol + Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3031, January 2001, + . + [RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004, + . + + [RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label + Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, + DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, + . + + [RFC4125] Le Faucheur, F. and W. Lai, "Maximum Allocation Bandwidth + Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic + Engineering", RFC 4125, DOI 10.17487/RFC4125, June 2005, + . [RFC4126] Ash, J., "Max Allocation with Reservation Bandwidth Constraints Model for Diffserv-aware MPLS Traffic @@ -7532,12 +7607,28 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Requirements", RFC 4657, DOI 10.17487/RFC4657, September 2006, . + + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 136] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + [RFC4736] Vasseur, JP., Ed., Ikejiri, Y., and R. Zhang, "Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP)", RFC 4736, DOI 10.17487/RFC4736, November 2006, . + [RFC5921] Bocci, M., Ed., Bryant, S., Ed., Frost, D., Ed., Levrau, + L., and L. Berger, "A Framework for MPLS in Transport + Networks", RFC 5921, DOI 10.17487/RFC5921, July 2010, + . + [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, @@ -7553,15 +7644,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, . - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 135] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, . @@ -7579,6 +7661,19 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 Traffic Engineering", RFC 9522, DOI 10.17487/RFC9522, January 2024, . + + + + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 137] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees This appendix presents the complete tree of the TE and Packet TE @@ -7586,10 +7681,6 @@ Appendix A. The Complete Schema Trees used. The data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the corresponding line. - Editors' Note: The YANG trees have been generated by pyang and - have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually - fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC EDITOR. - A.1. TE Types Schema Tree =============== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 ================ @@ -7610,14 +7701,6 @@ A.1. TE Types Schema Tree grouping te-topology-identifier: +-- te-topology-identifier +-- provider-id? te-global-id - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 136] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - +-- client-id? te-global-id +-- topology-id? te-topology-id grouping performance-metrics-one-way-delay-loss: @@ -7639,6 +7722,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 138] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth-normality? te-types:performance-metrics-normality grouping one-way-performance-metrics: @@ -7666,14 +7757,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- one-way-delay-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 137] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality @@ -7695,6 +7778,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- measure-interval? uint32 +-- advertisement-interval? uint32 +-- suppression-interval? uint32 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 139] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- threshold-out | +-- one-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? @@ -7722,14 +7813,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 +-- two-way-delay? uint32 - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 138] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - grouping explicit-route-hop: +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) @@ -7751,6 +7834,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction +--:(as-number) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 140] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type @@ -7778,14 +7869,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 139] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction @@ -7807,6 +7890,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 141] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +-- node-id? te-node-id @@ -7834,14 +7925,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- restriction? enumeration +-- index? uint32 +-- label-start - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 140] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) @@ -7863,6 +7946,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- label-restriction* [index] +-- restriction? enumeration +-- index? uint32 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 142] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- label-start | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? @@ -7890,14 +7981,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 141] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(numbered-link-hop) @@ -7919,6 +8002,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(label) | | +-- label-hop + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 143] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | | +-- te-label | | +-- (technology)? | | | +--:(generic) @@ -7946,14 +8037,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- link-tp-id-uri? nt:tp-id | +-- link-tp-id? te-tp-id | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 142] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +-- direction? te-link-direction @@ -7975,6 +8058,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- generic? te-bandwidth +-- link-protection? identityref +-- setup-priority? uint8 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 144] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- hold-priority? uint8 +-- signaling-type? identityref grouping tunnel-constraints: @@ -8002,14 +8093,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | +-- node-id? te-node-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | +--:(numbered-link-hop) - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 143] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type @@ -8031,6 +8114,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- te-label | +-- (technology)? | | +--:(generic) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 145] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | | +-- generic? rt-types:generalized-label | +-- direction? te-label-direction +-- route-object-include-exclude* [index] @@ -8058,14 +8149,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 144] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) | +-- label-hop @@ -8087,6 +8170,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- node-id? te-node-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(numbered-link-hop) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 146] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | +-- numbered-link-hop | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type @@ -8114,14 +8205,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index] +-- index? uint32 +-- (type)? - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 145] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +-- numbered-node-hop | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id @@ -8143,6 +8226,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +--:(as-number) | +-- as-number-hop | +-- as-number inet:as-number + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 147] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) | +-- label-hop @@ -8170,14 +8261,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | | | +-- route-object-exclude-object* [index] | | | | +-- index? uint32 | | | | +-- (type)? - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 146] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | | | | +--:(numbered-node-hop) | | | | | +-- numbered-node-hop | | | | | +-- node-id-uri? nw:node-id @@ -8199,6 +8282,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | | | | te-link-direction | | | | +--:(as-number) | | | | | +-- as-number-hop + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 148] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | | | | | +-- as-number inet:as-number | | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +--:(label) @@ -8226,14 +8317,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | | +--:(numbered-link-hop) | | | | +-- numbered-link-hop | | | | +-- link-tp-id te-tp-id - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 147] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | | | | +-- hop-type? te-hop-type | | | | +-- direction? te-link-direction | | | +--:(unnumbered-link-hop) @@ -8255,6 +8338,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | | | +-- (technology)? | | | | +--:(generic) | | | | +-- generic? + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 149] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | | | | rt-types:generalized\ -label | | | +-- direction? @@ -8282,14 +8373,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- path-srlgs-list* [usage] | +-- usage? identityref | +-- values* srlg - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 148] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - +-- path-srlgs-names +-- path-srlgs-name* [usage] +-- usage? identityref @@ -8311,6 +8394,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- upper-bound? uint64 +-- path-affinities-values | +-- path-affinities-value* [usage] + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 150] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | +-- usage? identityref | +-- value? admin-groups +-- path-affinity-names @@ -8338,14 +8429,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- signaling-type? identityref +-- path-metric-bounds | +-- path-metric-bound* [metric-type] - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 149] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- metric-type? identityref | +-- upper-bound? uint64 +-- path-affinities-values @@ -8367,6 +8450,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- names* string +-- disjointness? te-path-disjointness grouping generic-path-properties: + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 151] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +--ro path-properties +--ro path-metric* [metric-type] | +--ro metric-type? identityref @@ -8394,14 +8485,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +--ro (type)? +--:(numbered-node-hop) | +--ro numbered-node-hop - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 150] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +--ro node-id-uri? nw:node-id | +--ro node-id? te-node-id | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type @@ -8423,6 +8506,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +--ro as-number inet:as-number | +--ro hop-type? te-hop-type +--:(label) + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 152] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +--ro label-hop +--ro te-label +--ro (technology)? @@ -8450,14 +8541,6 @@ A.2. Packet TE Types Schema Tree | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth-normality? | | te-types:performance-metrics-normality - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 151] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth-normality? @@ -8479,6 +8562,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- one-way-packet-loss-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality +-- performance-metrics-two-way + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 153] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- two-way-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-normality? | te-types:performance-metrics-normality @@ -8506,14 +8597,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- one-way-packet-loss? decimal64 grouping two-way-performance-metrics-packet: +-- two-way-min-delay? uint32 - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 152] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 @@ -8535,6 +8618,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- one-way-available-bandwidth? | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- one-way-utilized-bandwidth? + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 154] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + | | rt-types:bandwidth-ieee-float32 | +-- two-way-delay? uint32 | +-- one-way-min-delay? uint32 @@ -8562,14 +8653,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 | +-- two-way-max-delay? uint32 | +-- two-way-delay-variation? uint32 | +-- two-way-packet-loss? decimal64 - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 153] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - +-- threshold-accelerated-advertisement +-- one-way-delay? uint32 +-- one-way-residual-bandwidth? @@ -8591,6 +8674,14 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 +-- cir? uint64 +-- cbs? uint64 +-- eir? uint64 + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 155] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + +-- ebs? uint64 +-- pir? uint64 +-- pbs? uint64 @@ -8619,13 +8710,6 @@ Appendix B. Changes from RFC 8776 identities, and groupings in the YANG modules and fixes few bugs in [RFC8776]. - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 154] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - The following new identities have been added to the 'ietf-te-types' module: @@ -8647,6 +8731,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * path-computation-error-reason and its derived identities; + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 156] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + * protocol-origin-type and its derived identities; * svec-objective-function-type and its derived identities; @@ -8674,14 +8765,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * link-metric-delay-variation; - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 155] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - * link-metric-loss; * path-metric-delay-variation; @@ -8704,6 +8787,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * path-metric-type: + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 157] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + new base identities have been added; * path-metric-te (bug fix); @@ -8731,13 +8821,6 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 The data type has been changed to be a union. - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 156] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - The following groupings, already defined in [RFC8776], have been updated in the 'ietf-te-types' module: @@ -8757,13 +8840,23 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - link-tp-id. - The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id - have been replaced by must statements that requires at least - the presence of: - o node-id or node-id-uri; - o link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 158] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + + The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have + been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the + presence of: + + * node-id or node-id-uri; + + * link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. * explicit-route-hop @@ -8781,20 +8874,13 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - link-tp-id. - The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id - have been replaced by must statements that requires at least - the presence of: + The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have + been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the + presence of: - o node-id or node-id-uri; + * node-id or node-id-uri; - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 157] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - - o link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. + * link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. * optimization-metric-entry: @@ -8808,11 +8894,18 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * tunnel-constraints; - The following new leaf have been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' + The following new leaf has been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: - network-id; + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 159] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + * path-constraints-route-objects: The following container, already defined in [RFC8776], has been @@ -8841,16 +8934,7 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * generic-path-optimization - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 158] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - - The following new leaf have been added to the 'generic-path- + The following new leaf has been added to the 'generic-path- optimization' grouping: - tiebreaker; @@ -8869,6 +8953,15 @@ Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 * of-minimize-load-most-loaded-link (the 'svec-of-minimize-load- most-loaded-link' identity should be used instead); + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 160] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + * of-minimize-cost-path-set (the 'svec-of-minimize-cost-path-set' identity should be used instead); @@ -8897,15 +8990,6 @@ Contributors Email: vbeeram@juniper.net - - - - -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 159] - -Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types December 2025 - - Rakesh Gandhi Cisco Systems, Inc. Email: rgandhi@cisco.com @@ -8928,6 +9012,12 @@ Authors' Addresses Email: xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 161] + +Internet-Draft TE Common YANG Types January 2026 + + Tarek Saad Cisco Systems Inc. Email: tsaad.net@gmail.com @@ -8957,4 +9047,26 @@ Authors' Addresses -Busi, et al. Expires 22 June 2026 [Page 160] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +Busi, et al. Expires 27 July 2026 [Page 162] diff --git a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.xml b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.xml index 8654dda..db385f9 100644 --- a/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.xml +++ b/drafts/te-types-update/draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update.xml @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ - + TEAS Working Group @@ -91,6 +91,60 @@ statements is not a backward compatible change, as defined in This document adds new common data types, identities, and groupings to both the "ietf-te-types" and the "ietf-te-packet-types" YANG modules and obsoletes . For further details, refer to . +
Editorial Note (To be removed by Editors of this document before sending it to the RFC Editor) + +
  • + Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed this document is sent to the RFC Editor. +
+ +The YANG trees in have been generated by pyang and have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC Editor. + +
+
Editorial Note (To be removed by the RFC Editor) + +
  • + Note to the RFC Editor: This section is to be removed prior to publication. +
+ +This document contains placeholder values that need to be replaced +with finalized values at the time of publication. This note +summarizes all of the substitutions that are needed. + +Please apply the following replacements: + + + XXXX --> the assigned RFC number for this I-D + draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29, Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 --> the draft version and section number as in the latest version of at the time this document is published as an RFC + 2026-01-15 --> the actual date of the publication of this document + 2026-01-23 --> the actual date of the publication of this document + + +
References to RFCs + +This document references a huge number of RFCs only by the RFC number which makes it really hard to follow. + +A preference has been expressed to replace the references with the RFC title in the text and just use RFC number as a reference. + +For example: + +In section 1 change: + +
  • + Section 4.12 of and Section 4.13 of +. +
+ +to + +
  • + Section 4.12 and Section 4.13 of YANG Data Models guidelines +document . +
+ +It is suggested that the RFC Editor and the tooling team identify a way to expand the references as proposed in a programmatic way. + +
+
Terminology The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL @@ -116,25 +170,21 @@ appear in all capitals, as shown here. Reference yang ietf-yang-types - + inet ietf-inet-types - + rt-types ietf-routing-types te-types ietf-te-types - RFCXXXX + RFC XXXX te-packet-types ietf-te-packet-types - RFCXXXX + RFC XXXX -
  • - RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned to this document. Please remove this note. -
-
Tree Diagrams @@ -147,63 +197,51 @@ appear in all capitals, as shown here.
APS:
- Automatic Protection Switching -
-
DS-TE:
-
- Differentiated Services Traffic Engineering + Automatic Protection Switching
GMPLS:
- Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching + Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching
LER:
- Label Edge Router + Label Edge Router
LSP:
- Label Switched Path + Label Switched Path
LSR:
- Label Switching Router + Label Switching Router
MPLS:
- Multiprotocol Label Switching + Multiprotocol Label Switching
NBMA:
- Non-Broadcast Multi-Access + Non-Broadcast Multi-Access
PM:
- Performance Metrics + Performance Metrics
RSVP:
- Resource Reservation Protocol -
-
SD:
-
- Signal Degrade -
-
SF:
-
- Signal Fail + Resource Reservation Protocol
SRLG:
- Shared Risk Link Group + Shared Risk Link Group
TE:
- Traffic Engineering + Traffic Engineering
WTR:
- Wait-to-Restore + Wait-to-Restore
@@ -214,7 +252,7 @@ appear in all capitals, as shown here.
TE Types Module Contents -The "ietf-te-types" module () contains common TE types that are independent and agnostic of any specific technology or control-plane instance. +The "ietf-te-types" module () contains TE types that are commonly used across multiple TE technology-specific modules.
Identities @@ -279,7 +317,7 @@ appear in all capitals, as shown here.
- The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type. The derived identities SHOULD describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define. + The unit of the path metric value is interpreted in the context of the path metric type. The derived identities MUST describe the unit and maximum value of the path metric types they define.
@@ -332,7 +370,7 @@ appear in all capitals, as shown here. applicable only to the TE YANG modules and not to PCEP environments (e.g., path-computation-error-no-topology); - technology-specific (e.g., No RWA constraints met) which are better defined in technology-specific YANG modules; + technology-specific which are better defined in technology-specific YANG modules; match more than one PCEP number in order to hide the details of the underlay PCE architecture (e.g., path-computation-error-no-dependent-server). @@ -375,7 +413,7 @@ In addition to identities for protocols like PCEP and B
te-node-id:
- A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4-octet in dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in full, mixed, shortened, or shortened-mixed IPv6 address notation. + A type representing the identifier for a node in a TE topology. The identifier is represented either as 4-octet in dotted-quad notation or as 16-octet in an IPv6 address notation.
@@ -476,12 +514,12 @@ In addition to identities for protocols like PCEP and B
bandwidth-profile-type:
- A base identity for various bandwidth profiles, also known as traffic profiles in , as specified in , and , that may be used to specify the temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs). + A base identity for various bandwidth profiles, also known as traffic profiles in , that may be used to specify the temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs), e.g., as specified in , and .
-
Data Types +
Data TypesI The "ietf-te-packet-types" module contains the following YANG reusable data type: @@ -532,14 +570,15 @@ In addition to identities for protocols like PCEP and B The "ietf-te-types" module imports the following modules: - "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in + "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" as defined in "ietf-routing-types" as defined in + "ietf-network" and "ietf-network-topology" as defined in -In addition to and , this module references the following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . +In addition to and , this module references the following documents in defining the types and YANG groupings: +, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . -
Packet TE Types YANG Module -The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports from the "ietf-te-types" module defined in of this document. +The "ietf-te-packet-types" module imports the following modules: -
+ "ietf-yang-types" as defined in + "ietf-te-types" as defined in of this document + + +
-
  • - RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned to this document. Please remove this note. -
-
Security Considerations @@ -6018,15 +6050,15 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - + - Interfaces for the optical transport network + Information Technology - Programming Languages - C - International Telecommunication Union + International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) - + - + @@ -6096,17 +6128,17 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - + Common YANG Data Types - - + + - This document introduces a collection of common data types to be used with the YANG data modeling language. This document obsoletes RFC 6021. + This document defines a collection of common data types to be used with the YANG data modeling language. It includes several new type definitions and obsoletes RFC 6991. - - + + @@ -6124,6 +6156,56 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide + + + MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators + + + + + + + + + This document describes alternate mechanisms to perform some of the functions of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection defined in RFC 6378, and also defines additional mechanisms. The purpose of these alternate and additional mechanisms is to provide operator control and experience that more closely models the behavior of linear protection seen in other transport networks. + This document also introduces capabilities and modes for linear protection. A capability is an individual behavior, and a mode is a particular combination of capabilities. Two modes are defined in this document: Protection State Coordination (PSC) mode and Automatic Protection Switching (APS) mode. + This document describes the behavior of the PSC protocol including priority logic and state machine when all the capabilities associated with the APS mode are enabled. + This document updates RFC 6378 in that the capability advertisement method defined here is an addition to that document. + + + + + + + + OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) + + + + + This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection + + + + + + + + This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. + This document addresses the functionality described in the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework document (RFC 6372) and defines a protocol that may be used to fulfill the function of the Protection State Coordination for linear protection, as described in that document. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP Tunnels @@ -6393,26 +6475,6 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - - - MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection to Match the Operational Expectations of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy, Optical Transport Network, and Ethernet Transport Network Operators - - - - - - - - - This document describes alternate mechanisms to perform some of the functions of MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) linear protection defined in RFC 6378, and also defines additional mechanisms. The purpose of these alternate and additional mechanisms is to provide operator control and experience that more closely models the behavior of linear protection seen in other transport networks. - This document also introduces capabilities and modes for linear protection. A capability is an individual behavior, and a mode is a particular combination of capabilities. Two modes are defined in this document: Protection State Coordination (PSC) mode and Automatic Protection Switching (APS) mode. - This document describes the behavior of the PSC protocol including priority logic and state machine when all the capabilities associated with the APS mode are enabled. - This document updates RFC 6378 in that the capability advertisement method defined here is an addition to that document. - - - - - RSVP ASSOCIATION Object Extensions @@ -6790,6 +6852,19 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide + + + A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation + + + + + As IPv6 deployment increases, there will be a dramatic increase in the need to use IPv6 addresses in text. While the IPv6 address architecture in Section 2.2 of RFC 4291 describes a flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address, this flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system engineers, and users. This document defines a canonical textual representation format. It does not define a format for internal storage, such as within an application or database. It is expected that the canonical format will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing for OSPFv2 Protocols @@ -6864,19 +6939,6 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - - - OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) - - - - - This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK] - - - - - IS-IS Extensions in Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) @@ -6890,23 +6952,6 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - - - MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) Linear Protection - - - - - - - - This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. - This document addresses the functionality described in the MPLS-TP Survivability Framework document (RFC 6372) and defines a protocol that may be used to fulfill the function of the Protection State Coordination for linear protection, as described in that document. [STANDARDS-TRACK] - - - - - Signalling Unnumbered Links in Resource ReSerVation Protocol - Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) @@ -7134,6 +7179,45 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide + + + + + Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) + + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + + Cisco Systems, Inc. + + + ZTE Corporation + + + Huawei Technologies + + + Nokia + + + + This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element + Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enhance support for Segment Routing + (SR) with a focus on the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and SR- + Algorithms in Traffic Engineering (TE). The SR-Algorithm associated + with a SID defines the path computation algorithm used by Interior + Gateway Protocols (IGPs). It introduces mechanisms for PCEP peers to + signal SR-Algorithm associated with SIDs by encoding this information + in Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) + subobjects, enables SR-Algorithm constraints for path computation, + and defines new metric types for the METRIC object. This document + updates RFC 8664 and RFC 9603 to allow such extensions. + + + + + + @@ -7149,6 +7233,108 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide + + + Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture + + + + Future data and transmission networks will consist of elements such as routers, switches, Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) systems, Add-Drop Multiplexors (ADMs), photonic cross-connects (PXCs), optical cross-connects (OXCs), etc. that will use Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) to dynamically provision resources and to provide network survivability using protection and restoration techniques. + This document describes the architecture of GMPLS. GMPLS extends MPLS to encompass time-division (e.g., SONET/SDH, PDH, G.709), wavelength (lambdas), and spatial switching (e.g., incoming port or fiber to outgoing port or fiber). The focus of GMPLS is on the control plane of these various layers since each of them can use physically diverse data or forwarding planes. The intention is to cover both the signaling and the routing part of that control plane. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks + + + + + + + + This document specifies an architectural framework for the application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the construction of packet-switched transport networks. It describes a common set of protocol functions -- the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) -- that supports the operational models and capabilities typical of such networks, including signaled or explicitly provisioned bidirectional connection-oriented paths, protection and restoration mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a dynamic control plane or IP forwarding support. Some of these functions are defined in existing MPLS specifications, while others require extensions to existing specifications to meet the requirements of the MPLS-TP. + This document defines the subset of the MPLS-TP applicable in general and to point-to-point transport paths. The remaining subset, applicable specifically to point-to-multipoint transport paths, is outside the scope of this document. + This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) / International Telecommunication Union Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport Profile within the IETF MPLS and Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) architectures to support the capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as defined by the ITU-T. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. + + + + + + + + Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture + + + + + + This document specifies the architecture for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS). [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + OSPF Version 2 + + + + This memo documents version 2 of the OSPF protocol. OSPF is a link- state routing protocol. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + + Framework for IP Performance Metrics + + + + + + + The purpose of this memo is to define a general framework for particular metrics to be developed by the IETF's IP Performance Metrics effort. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. + + + + + + + + Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Functional Specification + + + + + + + + This memo describes version 1 of RSVP, a resource reservation setup protocol designed for an integrated services Internet. RSVP provides receiver-initiated setup of resource reservations for multicast or unicast data flows, with good scaling and robustness properties. [STANDARDS-TRACK] + + + + + + + + Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering + + + + This document describes the principles of traffic engineering (TE) in the Internet. The document is intended to promote better understanding of the issues surrounding traffic engineering in IP networks and the networks that support IP networking and to provide a common basis for the development of traffic-engineering capabilities for the Internet. The principles, architectures, and methodologies for performance evaluation and performance optimization of operational networks are also discussed. + This work was first published as RFC 3272 in May 2002. This document obsoletes RFC 3272 by making a complete update to bring the text in line with best current practices for Internet traffic engineering and to include references to the latest relevant work in the IETF. + + + + + Reoptimization of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) Loosely Routed Label Switched Path (LSP) @@ -7192,45 +7378,6 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - - - - Carrying SR-Algorithm in Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) - - Cisco Systems, Inc. - - - Cisco Systems, Inc. - - - ZTE Corporation - - - Huawei Technologies - - - Nokia - - - - This document specifies extensions to the Path Computation Element - Communication Protocol (PCEP) to enhance support for Segment Routing - (SR) with a focus on the use of Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and SR- - Algorithms in Traffic Engineering (TE). The SR-Algorithm associated - with a SID defines the path computation algorithm used by Interior - Gateway Protocols (IGPs). It introduces mechanisms for PCEP peers to - signal SR-Algorithm associated with SIDs by encoding this information - in Explicit Route Object (ERO) and Record Route Object (RRO) - subobjects, enables SR-Algorithm constraints for path computation, - and defines new metric types for the METRIC object. This document - updates RFC 8664 and RFC 9603 to allow such extensions. - - - - - - - Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric Extensions @@ -7326,19 +7473,6 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - - - Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering - - - - This document describes the principles of traffic engineering (TE) in the Internet. The document is intended to promote better understanding of the issues surrounding traffic engineering in IP networks and the networks that support IP networking and to provide a common basis for the development of traffic-engineering capabilities for the Internet. The principles, architectures, and methodologies for performance evaluation and performance optimization of operational networks are also discussed. - This work was first published as RFC 3272 in May 2002. This document obsoletes RFC 3272 by making a complete update to bring the text in line with best current practices for Internet traffic engineering and to include references to the latest relevant work in the IETF. - - - - - Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements @@ -7412,19 +7546,15 @@ For example using 'explicit-route-hop', 'record-route-state' or 'te-topology-ide - + -
The Complete Schema Trees +
The Complete Schema Trees This appendix presents the complete tree of the TE and Packet TE types data model. See for an explanation of the symbols used. The data type of every leaf node is shown near the right end of the corresponding line. -
  • - Editors' Note: The YANG trees have been generated by pyang and have some bugs to be fixed before publication. Please manually fix the YANG tree before sending the document to the RFC EDITOR. -
-
TE Types Schema Tree
The following leaves, already defined in , have been updated in the 'explicit-route-hop': node-id; - link-tp-id. -The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: - node-id or node-id-uri; - link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. - + link-tp-id. + + +The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the presence of: + + + node-id or node-id-uri; + link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. explicit-route-hop The following new leaves have been added to the 'explicit-route-hop' grouping: node-id-uri; @@ -8410,19 +8543,22 @@ The following new leaves have been added to the 'explicit-route-hop' grouping: The following leaves, already defined in , have been updated in the 'explicit-route-hop': node-id; - link-tp-id. -The mandatory true statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by must statements that requires at least the presence of: - node-id or node-id-uri; - link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. - + link-tp-id. + + +The "mandatory true" statements for the node-id and link-tp-id have been replaced by "must" statements that requires at least the presence of: + + + node-id or node-id-uri; + link-tp-id or link-tp-id-uri. optimization-metric-entry: The following leaves, already defined in , have been updated in the 'optimization-metric-entry': metric-type; The base identity has been updated without impacting the set of derived identities that are allowed. tunnel-constraints; -The following new leaf have been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: +The following new leaf has been added to the 'tunnel-constraints' grouping: network-id; path-constraints-route-objects: @@ -8439,7 +8575,7 @@ The base identity has been updated to: generic-path-optimization -The following new leaf have been added to the 'generic-path-optimization' grouping: +The following new leaf has been added to the 'generic-path-optimization' grouping: tiebreaker; The following container, already defined in , has been deprecated: @@ -8494,821 +8630,830 @@ for their valuable comments and suggestions on this document. diff --git a/ietf-te-packet-types.yang b/ietf-te-packet-types.yang index f0e33fb..54393a9 100644 --- a/ietf-te-packet-types.yang +++ b/ietf-te-packet-types.yang @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types"; } import ietf-te-types { prefix te-types; @@ -14,10 +14,6 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number - // assigned to this document. - // Please remove this note. - organization "IETF Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working Group"; @@ -53,7 +49,7 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. - Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or @@ -67,11 +63,10 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcXXXX); see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; - // RFC Editor: Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number - // assigned to this document. - // Please remove this note. + // RFC Ed.: update the date below with the date of RFC publication + // and remove this note. - revision 2025-12-19 { + revision 2026-01-15 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - bandwidth-profile-type; @@ -89,13 +84,6 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { reference "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - - // RFC Editor: Please replace the revision date above with the - // module publication date in the format is (year-month-day). - // Please replace XXXX above with the RFC number assigned to - // this document. - // Please remove this note. - revision 2020-06-10 { description "Latest revision of TE MPLS types."; @@ -727,8 +715,15 @@ module ietf-te-packet-types { grouping bandwidth-profile-parameters { description - "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles in packet - networks."; + "Common parameters to define bandwidth profiles, also known as + traffic profiles in RFC 2475, that may be used to specify the + temporal properties of a packet stream (e.g., MPLS-TE LSPs), + e.g., as specified in MEF 10, RFC 2697 or RFC 2698."; + reference + "RFC 2475: An Architecture for Differentiated Services + MEF 10.3: Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3 + RFC 2697: A Single Rate Three Color Marker + RFC 2698: A Two Rate Three Color Marker"; leaf cir { type uint64; units "bits per second"; diff --git a/ietf-te-types.yang b/ietf-te-types.yang index e4deaf1..beb4640 100644 --- a/ietf-te-types.yang +++ b/ietf-te-types.yang @@ -6,12 +6,12 @@ module ietf-te-types { import ietf-inet-types { prefix inet; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 4"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types, Section 4"; } import ietf-yang-types { prefix yang; reference - "RFC 6991: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3"; + "RFC 9911: Common YANG Data Types, Section 3"; } import ietf-routing-types { prefix rt-types; @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ module ietf-te-types { described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119) (RFC 8174) when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. - Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as + Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ module ietf-te-types { This version of this YANG module is part of RFC XXXX; see the RFC itself for full legal notices."; - revision 2025-12-19 { + revision 2026-01-23 { description "This revision adds the following new identities: - lsp-provisioning-error-reason; @@ -162,7 +162,6 @@ module ietf-te-types { reference "RFC XXXX: Common YANG Data Types for Traffic Engineering"; } - revision 2020-06-10 { description "Initial Version of TE types."; @@ -1097,7 +1096,7 @@ module ietf-te-types { This restoration scheme is also known as 'Full LSP Re-routing', with the alternate route being - pre-computed and stored for use when the failure occurs."; + precomputed and stored for use when the failure occurs."; reference "RFC 4872: RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) @@ -1920,11 +1919,6 @@ module ietf-te-types { Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2"; } - // RFC Editor: Please replace the section and draft version in the - // reference to draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo-29 above with the latest - // version at the time the RFC is published. - // Please remove this note. - identity path-metric-residual-bandwidth { base path-metric-type; description @@ -2671,20 +2665,21 @@ module ietf-te-types { It is a string containing a list of numbers separated by commas, where each of these numbers can be non-negative - decimal, hex integer, or hex float: + decimal, hex integer, or hex float, as defined in + ISO/IEC 9899: (dec | hex | float)[*(','(dec | hex | float))] - For the packet-switching type, the string encoding may follow + For the packet-switching type, the string encoding MUST follow the type 'bandwidth-ieee-float32' as defined in RFC 8294 (e.g., 0x1p10), where the units are in bytes per second. Canonically, the string is represented as all lowercase and in hex, where the prefix '0x' precedes the hex number."; reference - "RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area - ITU-T G.709: Interfaces for the optical transport network - - Edition 6.0 (06/2020)"; + "ISO/IEC 9899:2024: Information Technology - Programming + Languages - C, Section 6.4.4.2 + RFC 8294: Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area"; } typedef te-ds-class { @@ -2744,7 +2739,7 @@ module ietf-te-types { } } description - "Defines a type representing the access type of a TE link."; + "The access types of a TE link."; reference "RFC 3630: Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2"; @@ -3270,6 +3265,12 @@ module ietf-te-types { grouping one-way-performance-metrics { description "One-way Performance Metrics (PM) throttle grouping."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions"; leaf one-way-delay { type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; @@ -3318,6 +3319,12 @@ module ietf-te-types { grouping two-way-performance-metrics { description "Two-way Performance Metrics (PM) throttle grouping."; + reference + "RFC 7471: OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 8570: IS-IS Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions + RFC 7823: Performance-Based Path Selection for Explicitly + Routed Label Switched Paths (LSPs) Using TE Metric + Extensions"; leaf two-way-delay { type uint32 { range "0..16777215"; @@ -4508,7 +4515,7 @@ module ietf-te-types { "The identifier of the node. It can be represented as IP address or dotted quad address - or as an URI. + or as a URI. The type data node disambiguates the union type."; }