doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 592 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..64db861
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc9356.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,592 @@
+
+
+
+
+Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                K. Talaulikar, Ed.
+Request for Comments: 9356                                     P. Psenak
+Updates: 9085                                              Cisco Systems
+Category: Standards Track                                   January 2023
+ISSN: 2070-1721
+
+
+       Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link Attributes in OSPF
+
+Abstract
+
+   There are deployments where the Layer 3 (L3) interface on which OSPF
+   operates is a Layer 2 (L2) interface bundle.  Existing OSPF
+   advertisements only support advertising link attributes of the L3
+   interface.  If entities external to OSPF wish to control traffic
+   flows on the individual physical links that comprise the L2 interface
+   bundle, link attribute information for the bundle members is
+   required.
+
+   This document defines the protocol extensions for OSPF to advertise
+   the link attributes of L2 bundle members.  The document also
+   specifies the advertisement of these OSPF extensions via the Border
+   Gateway Protocol - Link State (BGP-LS) and thereby updates RFC 9085.
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This is an Internet Standards Track document.
+
+   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
+   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
+   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
+   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
+   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
+
+   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
+   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
+   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9356.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+   document authors.  All rights reserved.
+
+   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
+   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
+   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
+   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
+   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
+   include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
+   Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
+   in the Revised BSD License.
+
+Table of Contents
+
+   1.  Introduction
+     1.1.  Requirements Language
+   2.  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+   3.  BGP-LS Advertisement
+   4.  IANA Considerations
+   5.  Operational Considerations
+   6.  Security Considerations
+   7.  References
+     7.1.  Normative References
+     7.2.  Informative References
+   Acknowledgements
+   Authors' Addresses
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   There are deployments where the L3 interface on which an OSPF
+   adjacency is established is a L2 interface bundle, for instance, a
+   Link Aggregation Group (LAG) [IEEE802.1AX].  This reduces the number
+   of adjacencies that need to be maintained by the OSPF protocol in
+   cases where there are parallel links between the neighbors.  Entities
+   external to OSPF such as Path Computation Elements (PCEs) [RFC4655]
+   may wish to control traffic flows on individual L2 member links of
+   the underlying bundle interface (e.g., LAG).  To do so, link
+   attribute information for individual bundle members is required.  The
+   protocol extensions defined in this document provide the means to
+   advertise this information.
+
+   This document defines sub-TLVs to advertise link attribute
+   information for each of the L2 bundle members that comprise the L3
+   interface on which OSPF operates.  Similar capabilities were
+   introduced for IS-IS in [RFC8668].
+
+   [RFC8665] and [RFC8666] introduced the Adjacency Segment Identifier
+   (Adj-SID) link attribute for OSPFv2 and OSPFv3, respectively, which
+   can be used as an instruction to forward traffic over a specific link
+   [RFC8402].  This document enables the advertisement of the Adj-SIDs
+   using the same Adj-SID sub-TLV at the granularity level of each L2
+   bundle member link so that traffic may be steered over that specific
+   member link.
+
+   Note that the advertisements at the L2 bundle member link level
+   defined in this document are intended to be provided to entities
+   external to OSPF and do not alter or change the OSPF route
+   computation.  The following items are intentionally not defined in
+   and are outside the scope of this document:
+
+   *  What link attributes will be advertised.  This is determined by
+      the needs of the external entities.
+
+   *  A minimum or default set of link attributes.
+
+   *  How these attributes are configured.
+
+   *  How the advertisements are used.
+
+   *  What impact the use of these advertisements may have on traffic
+      flow in the network.
+
+   *  How the advertisements are passed to external entities.
+
+   BGP Link State (BGP-LS) [RFC7752] was extended for the advertisement
+   of L2 bundle members and their attributes in [RFC9085], which covered
+   only IS-IS.  This document updates [RFC9085] by specifying the
+   advertisement from OSPF (refer to Section 3).
+
+1.1.  Requirements Language
+
+   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.
+
+2.  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+   A new L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV is introduced to advertise
+   L2 bundle member attributes in both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.  In the case
+   of OSPFv2, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the OSPFv2 Extended
+   Link TLV that is used to describe link attributes via the OSPFv2
+   Extended Link Opaque LSA (Link State Advertisement) [RFC7684].  In
+   the case of OSPFv3, this sub-TLV is an optional sub-TLV of the
+   Router-Link TLV of the OSPFv3 E-Router-LSA [RFC8362].
+
+   When the OSPF adjacency is associated with an L2 bundle interface,
+   this sub-TLV is used to advertise the underlying L2 bundle member
+   links along with their respective link attributes.  The inclusion of
+   this information implies that the identified link is a member of the
+   L2 bundle associated with an OSPF L3 link and that the member link is
+   operationally up.  Therefore, advertisements of member links MUST NOT
+   be done when the member link becomes operationally down or is no
+   longer a member of the identified L2 bundle.
+
+   The advertisement of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV may be
+   asymmetric for an OSPF link, depending on the underlying L2
+   connectivity, i.e., advertised by the router on only one end.
+
+   The L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV has the following format:
+
+    0                   1                   2                   3
+    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   |               Type            |          Length               |
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   |                   L2 Bundle Member Descriptor                 |
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+   |           Member Link Attribute sub-TLVs (variable)          //
+   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+
+            Figure 1: L2 Bundle Member Attributes Sub-TLV Format
+
+   Where:
+
+   Type:  24 for OSPFv2 and 29 for OSPFv3
+
+   Length:  The total length (in octets) of the value portion of the TLV
+      including nested sub-TLVs.
+
+   L2 Bundle Member Descriptor:  A 4-octet link-local identifier for the
+      member link.  This identifier is described as "link local
+      identifier" in [RFC4202] and used as "Local Interface ID" in
+      [RFC8510].
+
+   Link attributes for L2 bundle member links are advertised as sub-TLVs
+   of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+   In the case of OSPFv2, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
+   the sub-TLV space of the Extended Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
+   Extended Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the
+   member link.  Table 1 lists sub-TLVs and their applicability for L2
+   bundle member links.  The sub-TLVs that are not applicable MUST NOT
+   be used as sub-TLVs for the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+   Specifications that introduce new sub-TLVs of the Extended Link TLV
+   MUST indicate their applicability to the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+   sub-TLV.  Typically, attributes that have L3 semantics would not be
+   applicable, but L2 attributes would apply.  An implementation MUST
+   ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
+   of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+   +=======+======================================+===============+
+   | Value | Description                          | Applicability |
+   +=======+======================================+===============+
+   | 1     | SID/Label                            |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 2     | Adj-SID                              |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 3     | LAN Adj-SID/Label                    |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 4     | Network-to-Router Metric             |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 5     | RTM Capability                       |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 6     | OSPFv2 Link MSD                      |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 7     | Graceful-Link-Shutdown               |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 8     | Remote IPv4 Address                  |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 9     | Local/Remote Interface ID            |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 10    | Application-Specific Link Attributes |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 11    | Shared Risk Link Group               |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 12    | Unidirectional Link Delay            |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 13    | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay    |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 14    | Unidirectional Delay Variation       |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 15    | Unidirectional Link Loss             |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 16    | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth    |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 17    | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth   |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 18    | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth    |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 19    | Administrative Group                 |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 20    | Extended Administrative Group        |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 22    | TE Metric                            |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 23    | Maximum Link Bandwidth               |       Y       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 24    | L2 Bundle Member Attributes          |       N       |
+   +-------+--------------------------------------+---------------+
+
+     Table 1: Applicability of OSPFv2 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for
+                          L2 Bundle Members
+
+   Applicability:
+
+   Y:   This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
+        TLV.
+
+   N:   This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+        sub-TLV.
+
+   In the case of OSPFv3, the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV shares
+   the sub-TLV space of the Router-Link TLV, and the sub-TLVs of the
+   Router-Link TLV MAY be used to describe the attributes of the member
+   link.  Table 2 lists sub-TLVs that are applicable to the Router-Link
+   TLV and their applicability for L2 bundle member links.  The sub-TLVs
+   that are not applicable MUST NOT be used as sub-TLVs for the L2
+   Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.  Specifications that introduce new
+   sub-TLVs of the Router-Link TLV MUST indicate their applicability to
+   the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.  An implementation MUST
+   ignore any sub-TLVs received that are not applicable in the context
+   of the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+   +=======+=========================================+===============+
+   | Value | Description                             | Applicability |
+   +=======+=========================================+===============+
+   | 1     | IPv6-Forwarding-Address                 |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 2     | IPv4-Forwarding-Address                 |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 3     | Route-Tag                               |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 4     | Prefix SID                              |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 5     | Adj-SID                                 |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 6     | LAN Adj-SID                             |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 7     | SID/Label                               |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 8     | Graceful-Link-Shutdown                  |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 9     | OSPFv3 Link MSD                         |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 11    | Application-Specific Link Attributes    |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 12    | Shared Risk Link Group                  |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 13    | Unidirectional Link Delay               |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 14    | Min/Max Unidirectional Link Delay       |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 15    | Unidirectional Delay Variation          |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 16    | Unidirectional Link Loss                |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 17    | Unidirectional Residual Bandwidth       |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 18    | Unidirectional Available Bandwidth      |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 19    | Unidirectional Utilized Bandwidth       |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 20    | Administrative Group                    |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 21    | Extended Administrative Group           |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 22    | TE Metric                               |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 23    | Maximum Link Bandwidth                  |       Y       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 24    | Local Interface IPv6 Address            |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 25    | Remote Interface IPv6 Address           |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 26    | Flexible Algorithm Prefix Metric (FAPM) |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 27    | Prefix Source OSPF Router-ID            |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 28    | Prefix Source Router Address            |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 29    | L2 Bundle Member Attributes             |       N       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+   | 33    | OSPF Flexible Algorithm ASBR Metric     |       X       |
+   +-------+-----------------------------------------+---------------+
+
+     Table 2: Applicability of OSPFv3 Link Attribute Sub-TLVs for L2
+                              Bundle Members
+
+   Applicability:
+
+   Y:   This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-
+        TLV.
+
+   N:   This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+        sub-TLV.
+
+   X:   This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT appear
+        in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+3.  BGP-LS Advertisement
+
+   The BGP-LS extensions for the advertisement of L2 bundle members and
+   their attributes were specified in [RFC9085].  Using the OSPF L2
+   Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV defined in this document, the L2
+   bundle member information can now be advertised from OSPF into BGP-LS
+   on the same lines as discussed for IS-IS in Section 2.2.3 of
+   [RFC9085].
+
+4.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv2 Extended
+   Link TLV Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v2
+   (OSPFv2) Parameters" registry:
+
+   Value:  24
+
+   Designation:  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+   IANA has allocated the following code point in the "OSPFv3 Extended-
+   LSA Sub-TLVs" subregistry under the "Open Shortest Path First v3
+   (OSPFv3) Parameters" registry:
+
+   Value:  29
+
+   Description:  L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+
+   IANA has also introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv2
+   Extended Link TLV Sub-TLVs" registry.  The "L2BM" column indicates
+   applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The
+   initial allocations (Y/N) for this column are indicated in Table 1.
+   The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
+
+   |  The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
+   |  Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The options for the "L2BM" column are:
+   |  
+   |  Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+   |  sub-TLV.
+   |  
+   |  N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
+   |  Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+   Similarly, IANA has introduced a column titled "L2BM" in the "OSPFv3
+   Extended-LSA Sub-TLVs" registry.  The "L2BM" column indicates
+   applicability to the L2 Bundle Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The
+   initial allocations (Y/N/X) for this column are indicated in Table 2.
+   The following explanatory note has been added to the registry:
+
+   |  The "L2BM" column indicates applicability to the L2 Bundle
+   |  Attributes Member sub-TLV.  The options for the "L2BM" column are:
+   |  
+   |  Y - This sub-TLV MAY appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes
+   |  sub-TLV.
+   |  
+   |  N - This sub-TLV MUST NOT appear in the L2 Bundle Member
+   |  Attributes sub-TLV.
+   |  
+   |  X - This is not a sub-TLV of the Router-Link TLV; it MUST NOT
+   |  appear in the L2 Bundle Member Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+   Future allocations in these two registries are required to indicate
+   the applicability of the introduced sub-TLV to the L2 Bundle Member
+   Attributes sub-TLV.  IANA has added this document as a reference for
+   both registries.
+
+5.  Operational Considerations
+
+   Implementations MUST NOT enable the advertisement of L2 bundle member
+   links and their attributes in OSPF LSAs by default and MUST provide a
+   configuration option to enable their advertisement on specific links.
+
+   [RFC9129] specifies the base YANG data model for OSPF.  The required
+   configuration and operational elements for this feature are expected
+   to be introduced as augmentation to this base YANG data model for
+   OSPF.
+
+6.  Security Considerations
+
+   The OSPF protocol has supported the advertisement of link attribute
+   information, including link identifiers, for many years.  The
+   advertisements defined in this document are identical to the existing
+   advertisements defined in [RFC3630], [RFC4203], [RFC5329], [RFC7471],
+   [RFC8665], and [RFC8666], but they are associated with L2 links that
+   are part of a bundle interface on which the OSPF protocol operates.
+   Therefore, the security considerations of these documents are
+   applicable, and there are no new security issues introduced by the
+   extensions in this document.
+
+   As always, if the protocol is used in an environment where
+   unauthorized access to the physical links on which OSPF packets are
+   sent occurs, then attacks are possible.  The use of authentication as
+   defined in [RFC5709], [RFC7474], [RFC4552], and [RFC7166] is
+   recommended for preventing such attacks.
+
+7.  References
+
+7.1.  Normative References
+
+   [IEEE802.1AX]
+              IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
+              Networks--Link Aggregation", IEEE Std 802.1AX,
+              DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034, May 2020,
+              <https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2020.9105034>.
+
+   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
+
+   [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,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4202>.
+
+   [RFC7684]  Psenak, P., Gredler, H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W.,
+              Tantsura, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPFv2 Prefix/Link Attribute
+              Advertisement", RFC 7684, DOI 10.17487/RFC7684, November
+              2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7684>.
+
+   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
+              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
+              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
+
+   [RFC8362]  Lindem, A., Roy, A., Goethals, D., Reddy Vallem, V., and
+              F. Baker, "OSPFv3 Link State Advertisement (LSA)
+              Extensibility", RFC 8362, DOI 10.17487/RFC8362, April
+              2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8362>.
+
+   [RFC8665]  Psenak, P., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
+              H., Shakir, R., Henderickx, W., and J. Tantsura, "OSPF
+              Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 8665,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC8665, December 2019,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8665>.
+
+   [RFC8666]  Psenak, P., Ed. and S. Previdi, Ed., "OSPFv3 Extensions
+              for Segment Routing", RFC 8666, DOI 10.17487/RFC8666,
+              December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8666>.
+
+   [RFC9085]  Previdi, S., Talaulikar, K., Ed., Filsfils, C., Gredler,
+              H., and M. Chen, "Border Gateway Protocol - Link State
+              (BGP-LS) Extensions for Segment Routing", RFC 9085,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC9085, August 2021,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9085>.
+
+7.2.  Informative References
+
+   [RFC3630]  Katz, D., Kompella, K., and D. Yeung, "Traffic Engineering
+              (TE) Extensions to OSPF Version 2", RFC 3630,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC3630, September 2003,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3630>.
+
+   [RFC4203]  Kompella, K., Ed. and Y. Rekhter, Ed., "OSPF Extensions in
+              Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
+              (GMPLS)", RFC 4203, DOI 10.17487/RFC4203, October 2005,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4203>.
+
+   [RFC4552]  Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality
+              for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, DOI 10.17487/RFC4552, June 2006,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4552>.
+
+   [RFC4655]  Farrel, A., Vasseur, J.-P., and J. Ash, "A Path
+              Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture", RFC 4655,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC4655, August 2006,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4655>.
+
+   [RFC5329]  Ishiguro, K., Manral, V., Davey, A., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
+              "Traffic Engineering Extensions to OSPF Version 3",
+              RFC 5329, DOI 10.17487/RFC5329, September 2008,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5329>.
+
+   [RFC5709]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Fanto, M., White, R., Barnes, M.,
+              Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "OSPFv2 HMAC-SHA Cryptographic
+              Authentication", RFC 5709, DOI 10.17487/RFC5709, October
+              2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5709>.
+
+   [RFC7166]  Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting
+              Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 7166,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7166, March 2014,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7166>.
+
+   [RFC7471]  Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., Atlas, A., and S.
+              Previdi, "OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric
+              Extensions", RFC 7471, DOI 10.17487/RFC7471, March 2015,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7471>.
+
+   [RFC7474]  Bhatia, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and A. Lindem, Ed.,
+              "Security Extension for OSPFv2 When Using Manual Key
+              Management", RFC 7474, DOI 10.17487/RFC7474, April 2015,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7474>.
+
+   [RFC7752]  Gredler, H., Ed., Medved, J., Previdi, S., Farrel, A., and
+              S. Ray, "North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and
+              Traffic Engineering (TE) Information Using BGP", RFC 7752,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC7752, March 2016,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7752>.
+
+   [RFC8402]  Filsfils, C., Ed., Previdi, S., Ed., Ginsberg, L.,
+              Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., and R. Shakir, "Segment
+              Routing Architecture", RFC 8402, DOI 10.17487/RFC8402,
+              July 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8402>.
+
+   [RFC8510]  Psenak, P., Ed., Talaulikar, K., Henderickx, W., and P.
+              Pillay-Esnault, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling (LLS)
+              Extensions for Local Interface ID Advertisement",
+              RFC 8510, DOI 10.17487/RFC8510, January 2019,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8510>.
+
+   [RFC8668]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Bashandy, A., Filsfils, C., Nanduri,
+              M., and E. Aries, "Advertising Layer 2 Bundle Member Link
+              Attributes in IS-IS", RFC 8668, DOI 10.17487/RFC8668,
+              December 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8668>.
+
+   [RFC9129]  Yeung, D., Qu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, I., and A. Lindem,
+              "YANG Data Model for the OSPF Protocol", RFC 9129,
+              DOI 10.17487/RFC9129, October 2022,
+              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9129>.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+   This document leverages similar work done for IS-IS, and the authors
+   of this document would like to acknowledge the contributions of the
+   authors of [RFC8668].
+
+   The authors would like to thank Anoop Ghanwani, Paul Kyzivat, Dan
+   Romascanu, and Russ Mundy for their review and feedback on this
+   document.  The authors would also like to thank Acee Lindem for his
+   detailed shepherd review of this document.  The authors would also
+   like to thank John Scudder for his AD review and the discussion
+   related to the applicability of TLVs/sub-TLVs to the L2 Bundle Member
+   Attributes sub-TLV.
+
+Authors' Addresses
+
+   Ketan Talaulikar (editor)
+   Cisco Systems
+   India
+   Email: ketant.ietf@gmail.com
+
+
+   Peter Psenak
+   Cisco Systems
+   Apollo Business Center
+   Mlynske nivy 43
+   821 09 Bratislava
+   Slovakia
+   Email: ppsenak@cisco.com