Skip to main content

The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extension for Wavelength Switched Optical Network (WSON) Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA)
draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-07-07
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-05-11
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-03-30
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF
2020-02-27
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to REF from EDIT
2019-12-16
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF
2019-08-19
17 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2019-08-19
17 Gunter Van de Velde Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Carlos Martínez was marked no-response
2019-03-26
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2019-03-26
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2019-03-26
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2019-03-26
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-03-26
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2019-03-25
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2019-03-25
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on WGC
2019-03-25
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on WGC from In Progress
2019-03-20
17 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2019-03-20
17 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2019-03-20
17 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2019-03-20
17 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2019-03-20
17 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2019-03-20
17 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2019-03-20
17 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2019-03-20
17 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2019-03-20
17 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2019-03-20
17 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2019-03-20
17 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2019-03-20
17 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Yes from Discuss
2019-03-01
17 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-17.txt
2019-03-01
17 (System) New version approved
2019-03-01
17 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-03-01
17 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-03-01
16 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot comment]
Thank you for resolving my DISCUSS points.
2019-03-01
16 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2019-03-01
16 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-16.txt
2019-03-01
16 (System) New version approved
2019-03-01
16 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-03-01
16 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-22
15 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-15.txt
2019-02-22
15 (System) New version approved
2019-02-22
15 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-02-22
15 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-16
14 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently
mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties
surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well.

I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by
duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies if a comment is
duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake).

Section 4.1

  Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
  request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.

I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here.

    . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
        details.

Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length
plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV
and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV.  Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests
that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and
length reflected in this text and in the figure?

Section 4.3.2

RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped
value that may change on a per-hop basis.  I don't see where our base label
gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does
not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic.

Section 4.4.2

  This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop
  Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP
  IRO object [RFC5440].

The WSON
Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we
want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to
document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere?
How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage?
This seems rather underspecified.
2019-02-16
14 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-02-16
14 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently
mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties
surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well.

I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by
duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies if a comment is
duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake).

Section 4.1

  Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
  request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.

I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here.

    . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
        details.

Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length
plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV
and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV.  Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests
that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and
length reflected in this text and in the figure?

Section 4.3.2

RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped
value that may change on a per-hop basis.  I don't see where our base label
gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does
not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic.

Section 4.4.2

  This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop
  Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP
  IRO object [RFC5440].

The WSON
Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we
want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to
document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere?
How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage?
This seems rather underspecified.

Section 8.5

Isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)?

Section 8.6

As above, isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)?
2019-02-16
14 Benjamin Kaduk Ballot discuss text updated for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-02-15
14 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-14.txt
2019-02-15
14 (System) New version approved
2019-02-15
14 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-02-15
14 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-07
13 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-02-07
13 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-13.txt
2019-02-07
13 (System) New version approved
2019-02-07
13 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-02-07
13 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-07
12 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2019-02-07
12 Deborah Brungard [Ballot discuss]
IANA requested a hold so they can check the revised IANA section.
2019-02-07
12 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] Position for Deborah Brungard has been changed to Discuss from Yes
2019-02-07
12 Ignas Bagdonas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas
2019-02-07
12 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2019-02-06
12 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2019-02-06
12 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2019-02-06
12 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-02-06
12 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-12.txt
2019-02-06
12 (System) New version approved
2019-02-06
12 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-02-06
12 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2019-02-06
11 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot comment]
I had concerns similar to those raised by Benjamin and I support his DISCUSS.
2019-02-06
11 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2019-02-05
11 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
I support Benjamin's DISCUSS (and thank him for saving me some typing :-) )

IDNits complains about some citations without matching references. Please …
[Ballot comment]
I support Benjamin's DISCUSS (and thank him for saving me some typing :-) )

IDNits complains about some citations without matching references. Please check.

The "authors" section does not match the first page. Should some of those be listed as "contributors"?
2019-02-05
11 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2019-02-05
11 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2019-02-05
11 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot comment]
Thank you for the very helpful Section 3.
2019-02-05
11 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2019-02-05
11 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot comment]
Benjamin's DISCUSS is a superset of issues I spotted, so I am agreeing with it.

In Section 4.1:

    . Wavelength Selection …
[Ballot comment]
Benjamin's DISCUSS is a superset of issues I spotted, so I am agreeing with it.

In Section 4.1:

    . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
        details.

Is TLV value 32 bit or the whole TLV? (This is the same issue as raised by Benjamin)

In Section 4.3:

  o  Link Identifiers: Identifies each link ID for which restriction
  is applied. The length is dependent on the link format and the Count
  field.

Is the type field extensible?

  See Section 4.3.1. for Link Identifier encoding and Section
  4.3.2. for the Wavelength Restriction Field encoding, respectively.

8.5. New PCEP TLV: Optical Interface Class List TLV

  As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
  the optical interface class list. IANA is to allocate this new TLV
  from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
  (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
  indicators).

  Value            Description                Reference
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  TBD5              Optical Interface          [This.I-D]
                    Class List

I don't see TBD5 referenced anywhere else in the document.

8.6. New PCEP TLV: Client Signal TLV

  As described in Section 4.3, a new PCEP TLV is defined to indicate
  the client signal information. IANA is to allocate this new TLV from
  the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry
  (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcep-tlv-type-
  indicators).

  Value            Description                Reference
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  TBD6              Client Signal Information  [This.I-D]

I don't see TBD6 referenced anywhere else in the document either.
2019-02-05
11 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2019-02-05
11 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2019-02-04
11 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
I share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his DISCUSS.  I have added some related comments below (not overlapping …
[Ballot comment]
I share Benjamin's concerns about the clarity of this document, and support his DISCUSS.  I have added some related comments below (not overlapping with his, of Mirja's).

(1) §4.2 (Wavelength Selection TLV): "The encoding of this TLV is specified as the Wavelength Selection Sub-TLV in Section 4.2.2 of [RFC7689]."  It should be made clear that this document is requesting a new TLV-type code to be assigned (§8.2) for this TLV.  IOW, rfc7689 just describes the value part of the TLV...

(2) §4.3: s/MUST be able to specify a restriction/MUST specify a restriction  I assume you really want the restriction signaled, and not just the ability to do it...

(3) §4.3: "the PCE MUST have mechanisms to know the tunability restrictions"  How can this be Normatively enforced?  It seems to be that the MUST is out of place.  s/MUST/must

(4) §4.3: "the PCC MUST be able to apply additional constraints"  This sounds like a requirement, which is immediately satisfied by the definition of the Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV...so I think the MUST is out of place.  s/MUST/must

(5) §4.3.2: s/wavelength restriction TLV/Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV

(6) I think that these references should be Normative: rfc5440, rfc8253.
2019-02-04
11 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2019-02-04
11 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add:

1) …
[Ballot comment]
I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add:

1) sec 4.3:
  "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST
  send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for
  the details."
This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST"; I propose to change to lower case "must".

2) sec 4.3:
"This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify
  multiple restrictions."
How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft!

3) sec 4.3.2:
"Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set
  field."
What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly.

4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8!
2019-02-04
11 Mirja Kühlewind Ballot comment text updated for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-02-04
11 Mirja Kühlewind
[Ballot comment]
I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add:

1) …
[Ballot comment]
I had some similar concerns as Benjamin but I think he listed them all. I some more minor editorial comments to add:

1) sec 4.3:
  "an Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST
  send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for
  the details."
This doesn't really make sense as normative "MUST", propose to change to lower case "must".

2) sec 4.3:
"This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify
  multiple restrictions."
How do you know how much restrictions will be there? Based on a length field in the base protocol? Please clarify in the draft!

3) sec 4.3.2:
"Length (16 bits): It is the length in bytes of the entire label set
  field."
What is meant by "label set field" here? Please clarify in the draft or align wording accordingly.

4) Error value 3 is missing in sec 8.8!
2019-02-04
11 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2019-02-02
11 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to …
[Ballot discuss]
I'm concerned that this is not sufficiently specified to be implementable
in an interoperable fashion.  In particular, I'm concerned that there need
to be some values allocated from IANA registries that are not currently
mentioned in this document, and there are some potential subtleties
surrounding data structure reuse that I'm not entirely sure about as well.

I include section-by-section comments in this DISCUSS section (populated by
duplicating my COMMENT section and trimming; my apologies is a comment is
duplicated in both ballot sections by mistake).

Section 4.1

  Additionally, given a range of potential labels to allocate, the
  request SHOULD convey the heuristic / mechanism to the allocation.

I can't tell which protocol interaction is being described here.

    ::=

                          []

                         

      Where:

        ::=[]

        ::=

                     

                     

                      [other optional objects...]

Is this intended to conform to any particular formal language, or is it an
ad hoc description?  Where is  defined?  (RFC 5440 spells it as
"" and not "", BTW.)

  If the WA object is present in the request, it MUST be encoded after
  the ENDPOINTS object as defined in [PCEP-GMPLS]. Orderings with
  respect to the other following objects are irrelevant.

The prose and the figure do not exactly match up in this regard (is WA
optional or mandatory; does  need to be the first of the optional
objects?).

    . Wavelength Selection TLV (32 bits): See Section 4.2 for
        details.

Either this is a proper TLV, in which case it has 32 bits of tag and length
plus an additional 32 bits of value, for 64 bits total, or it is not a TLV
and comprises solely of the "value" field of the Wavelength Selection
Sub-TLV.  Section 8.2 allocates a TLV type indicator for it, which suggests
that the full TLV encoding is intended; where are the 32 bits for type and
length reflected in this text and in the figure?

Section 4.3

  The Wavelength Restriction Constraint TLV type is TBD3 (See Section
  8.3). This TLV MAY appear more than once to be able to specify
  multiple restrictions.

This is in conflict with the diagram in Section 4.1 (which does not appear
to depict multiple occurrences).  It's also unclear
that the stated reasoning applies, since the RBNF indicates that ( ) can repeat, so the need for multiple
TLVs is for different *action* (and count) rather than specifically for the
wavelength restrictions.

How are future "Action" values to be defined?

  Various encoding errors are possible with this TLV (e.g., not
  exactly two link identifiers with the range case, unknown identifier
  types, no matching link for a given identifier, etc.). To indicate
  errors associated with this type, a new Error-Type (TBD8) and an
  Error-value (Error-value=3) MUST be defined so that the PCE MUST
  send a PCErr message with a PCEP-ERROR Object. See Section 5.1 for
  the details.

This normative language is not appropriate -- it in effect is only
constraining the current document, so descriptive language of "a new error
type is assigned" is more appropriate.

What is the mechanism for extensibility of future Link Identifier sub-TLV
types?  Should there be a registry?

Section 4.3.2

RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped
value that may change on a per-hop basis.  I don't see where our base label
gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does
not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic.

Section 4.4

  The END-POINTS type generalized endpoint is extended as follows:

    ::=

                             

                              [...]

Where is the original  definition that is being
updated?  (Why does this definition not include the
component from [PCEP-GMPLS]?)  Why is there no
Updates: relationship to reflect this extension?  Is  supposed to be the same TLV as defined in Section
4.3.2 without a separate containing PCEP object?

Per [PCEP-GMPLS],  is a TLV.  Does that not also mean that
and
need to be (comprised of) sibling TLVs?  This document allocates a TLV type
for Wavelength Restriction Constraint in Section 8.3, but the references to
RFC 7581 for  and
seem to only be for the encoding of sub-TLVs, with sub-TLV values that live
in the separate "Types for Subfields of WSON Resource Block Information"
registry and are in a colliding namespace.  Don't we need to allocate TLV
values from the same place as  (i.e., first-level PCEP TLVs)
in order for this to be en/decodable?

Section 4.4.1

  The permitted sub-sub objects are the Optical Interface Class List
  and the Client Signal information whose encodings are described in
  Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of [RFC7581], respectively.

Similarly to for the , don't we need to allocate XRO
Subobject values in order for these structures to be semantically
en/decodable?

Section 4.4.2

  This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop
  Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP
  IRO object [RFC5440].

The referenced structure is defined as an RSVP-TE LSP attribute.
I cannot find any evidence that its usage in PCEP is defined, nor any TLV
or subobject type allocated for its usage with PCEP.  (Is there some
generic equivalence or mapping between (G)MPLS EROs and IROs and the PCEP
analogues that I haven't encountered yet?)  Don't we need to allocate an
IRO Subobject value for this usage in a PCEP IRO object?  Also, the WSON
Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we
want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to
document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere?
How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage?
This seems rather underspecified.

Section 5

I'm very confused by the structure definition.  It claims to be the "TLV
data", but also includes a type and length field so as to indicate that it
is not just the data contents but the header as well.  But the length field
is truncated by a bit for use as the 'M' flag -- how can we modify the
outer TLV header in this way?!  Section 8.4 indicates that this type value
is to be allocated from the "PCEP TLV Type Indicators" subregistry created
by RFC 5440, that uses the full 2 bytes for the "length" field.

Section 5.1

This section describes an Error-value=3 that is not reflected in Section
8.8 in the requests to IANA.

Section 8.5

Isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)?

Section 8.6

As above, isn't this mentioned in Section 4.4 (not 4.3)?
2019-02-02
11 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

  A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
  or several transparent segments, which are delimited …
[Ballot comment]
Section 3

  A Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switched Path (LSP) may span one
  or several transparent segments, which are delimited by 3R
  regenerators (Re-amplification, Re-shaping, Re-timing) typically
  with electronic regenerator and optional wavelength conversion. Each
  transparent segment or path in WSON is referred to as an optical
  path. An optical path may span multiple fiber links and the path
  should be assigned the same wavelength for each link. In such case,
  the optical path is said to satisfy the wavelength-continuity
  constraint. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between a LSC LSP
  and transparent segments (optical paths).

Some nit-level remarks: using "optical path" for both transparent segments
and paths is perhaps confusing; perhaps "an optical path in WSON refers to
a transparent pathe that can comprise of one or more segments".  If the
path "should be assigned the same wavelength for each link", what kind of
constraint is that?  Is it just a nice "feel-good" thing for humans, is
there some physical requirement for it, does it make planning simpler?  I
understand that this is lowercase and thus not intended to be normative,
but on first read it feels like the implication is that there is some
aspect of the physics that drives this to be the case; I don't actually
believe that to be true, though.  What entities would care if the
"wavelength-continuity constraint" is satisfied?  (That is, is it really a
"constraint" or more of a "property"?)

I'm a little confused by Figure 1, shich weems to imply by link labels that
the middle nodes that are not makred "(3R)" are LSC nodes, but isn't it the
case that if these nodes make use of their lamda switching capabilities
that they will cease to be transparent and instead also be 3Rs?

  Note that two optical paths within a WSON LSP do not need to operate
  on the same wavelength (due to the wavelength conversion
  capabilities). Two optical paths that share a common fiber link
  cannot be assigned the same wavelength; Otherwise, the two signals

Are these "two optical paths" part of the same or different LSPs?  My best
reading of the two instances of the phrase are that the first one is the
same LSP and the second usage is for different LSPs, which is pretty
confusing to the reader (if true).

Please expand PSC and TDM. 

                            In order to improve the signal quality and
  limit some optical effects several advanced modulation processing
  capabilities are used. [...]

Used by this document specifically, or in general usage?

  This document, however, does not address optical impairments as part
  of RWA path computation.

Do we need a link/reference for "optical impairments"?

Section 4.1

  o  Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.

Do we also want to say "ignored on receipt"?

Please expand TED and NMS (IGP is "well-known" per
https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt).

Section 4.3


  Note that "interfaces" are assumed to be bidirectional.

You haven't used the term "interface" (with or without scare quotes) yet,
so this is a dangling reference.

How are future "Action" values to be defined?

  o  Reserved (16 bits): Reserved for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.

And ignored on receipt?

Section 4.3.2

If you're going to copy the Label Set format here from RFC 7579, maybe you
could say something like "repeated here for convenience, with the base
label internal structure included" to spare the reader from having to go
compare the two formats?  This also holds for the list of Action values and
the other field descriptions not already incorporated from RFC 7579 by
reference.

RFC 6205 says that the "Identifier" is a per-node assigned and scoped
value that may change on a per-hop basis.  I don't see where our base label
gets scoped to a node (just that it's part of a PCReq message which does
not seem scoped to a node), so this seems problematic.

Section 4.4

  Path computation for WSON includes checking of signal processing
  capabilities at each interface against requested capability; this
  requirement MAY be implemented by the IGP.  [...]

How is the IGP supposed to check the processing capabilities of an
interface against a given request?  I'd suggest rephrasing this text to
parallel the text in Section 4.3 about how mechanisms to know the interface
capabilities can include IGP or NMS.


  The supported signal processing capabilities are those described in
  [RFC7446]:

"Supported by what?"  Perhaps rephrase as "The signal processing
capabilities considered in the RWA Information Model [RFC7446] are:".

Section 4.4.1

  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |X|  Type = X  |    Length    |  Reserved    | Attribute    |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I strongly suggest using a different placeholder than 'X' in "Type = X"
since there is a separate 'X' bit.

  Reserved bits (8 bits) are for future use and SHOULD be zeroed.

And ignored on receipt?

  The Attribute field (8 bits) indicates how the exclusion sub-object
  is to be interpreted. The Attribute can only be 0 (Interface) or 1
  (Node).

I would suggest phrasing this more like "[RFC5521] defines several
Attribute values; the only permitted Attribute values for this sub-object
are [...]".

Section 4.4.2

  This is supported by adding the sub-object "WSON Processing Hop
  Attribute TLV" defined for ERO in Section 4.2 [RFC7689] to the PCEP
  IRO object [RFC5440].

The referenced structure is defined as an RSVP-TE LSP attribute.
I cannot find any evidence that its usage in PCEP is defined, nor any TLV
or subobject type allocated for its usage with PCEP.  (Is there some
generic equivalence or mapping between (G)MPLS EROs and IROs and the PCEP
analogues that I haven't encountered yet?)  Don't we need to allocate an
IRO Subobject value for this usage in a PCEP IRO object?  Also, the WSON
Processing Hop Attribute field is encoded as a sequence of sub-TLVs; if we
want to reuse the same sub-TLVs from the existing usage, don't we need to
document the linkage from the existing registry to the new usage somewhere?
How does the error handling translate to PCEP usage?
This seems rather underspecified.

Section 5

  Option (b) allows distributed label allocation (performed during
  signaling) to complete wavelength allocation.

  The Wavelength Allocation TLV type is TBD4 (See Section 8.4). The
  TLV data is defined as follows:

Could you maybe give a bit more of transition/explanation, e.g., whether
this TLV is used for both (a) and (b), that it's a hop attribute that
appears in a TLV in the ERO's TLV list, etc.

  This TLV is encoded as an attributes TLV, per [RFC5420], which is
  carried in the ERO LSP Attribute Subobjects per [RFC7570].

RFC 7570 seems to call these "Hop Attribute Subobjects", if I'm finding the
right place.  Using consistent naming would be a big help to the (confused)
reader.

Section 6

Thank you for the Manageability Considerations section; it helps give a
picture of how this slots into the broader ecosystem.
2019-02-02
11 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2019-01-28
11 Elwyn Davies Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list.
2019-01-24
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2019-01-24
11 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2019-01-21
11 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-02-07
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2019-01-21
11 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2019-01-14
11 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2019-01-14
11 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-11.txt
2019-01-14
11 (System) New version approved
2019-01-14
11 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2019-01-14
11 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-12-28
10 Elwyn Davies Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Elwyn Davies. Sent review to list.
2018-12-27
10 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2018-12-26
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2018-12-26
10 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2018-12-24
10 Watson Ladd Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Watson Ladd. Sent review to list.
2018-12-24
10 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2018-12-24
10 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are four actions which we must complete.

First, in the PCEP Objects registry on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Object-Class Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Name: WA
Object-Type: 1: Wavelength-Assignment
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Second, in the PCEP TLV Type Indicators also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

five, new registrations will be made as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Wavelength Selection
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Wavelength Restriction
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Wavelength Allocation
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Optical Interface Class List
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: Client Signal Information
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Third, in the NO-PATH-VECTOR TLV Flag Field registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Bit: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: No RWA constraints met
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Fourth, in the PCEP-ERROR Object Error Types and Values registry also on the Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/

a single, new registration will be made as follows:

Error-Type: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Meaning: WSON RWA Error
Error-value: 1: Insufficient Memory
2 RWA computation not supported
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist
2018-12-20
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2018-12-20
10 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Watson Ladd
2018-12-13
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2018-12-13
10 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Elwyn Davies
2018-12-13
10 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2018-12-13
10 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-12-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Daniele Ceccarelli , db3546@att.com, draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, pce-chairs@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength Assignment) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Path Computation Element WG (pce) to
consider the following document: - 'PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and
Wavelength Assignment'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-12-27. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
  Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
  Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
  Path provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
  assignment (RWA) process.  From a path computation perspective,
  wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
  can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
  constraint to optical path computation.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2018-12-13
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2018-12-13
10 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2018-12-13
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2018-12-13
10 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2018-12-13
10 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2018-12-13
10 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2018-12-13
10 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-10.txt
2018-12-13
10 (System) New version approved
2018-12-13
10 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2018-12-13
10 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-11-04
09 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-09.txt
2018-11-04
09 (System) New version approved
2018-11-04
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2018-11-04
09 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2018-10-22
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ravi Singh.
2018-10-08
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2018-10-08
08 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Ravi Singh
2018-10-05
08 Deborah Brungard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated …
As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.
Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?
>Standard Track. It is indicated in the title page header.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
>  This document provides the Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).  Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.  From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light path computation.

Working Group Summary
> The document is supported by the WG and no particular issue was raised during the WG last call.
Document Quality

> The protocol is widely implemented but I am not aware of any commercial implementation of the extensions defined in this document. The document is signed by authors from different vendors, operators and research centers, hence I guess someone has plans to develop it. The draft have been reviewed by the shepherd but no particular review was carried out. (e.g. MIB doctor etc)

Personnel
>  Who is the Document Shepherd? Daniele Ceccarelli
> Who is the Responsible Area Director? Deborah Brungard

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
> The shepherd review raised a number of issues that have been solved by the authors. The new version of the document (-06) is ready to be moved forward.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
>None

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
> No particular review is needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
> No concerns

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full  conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
> Yes. Polling carried out on the mailing list. All the authors and contributors replied.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
> No IPR disclosed against this document

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it  represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 
> The WG as a whole supports the document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme  discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
> No concern raised by any member of the WG during the document lifecycle.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
> All the nits have been fixed by the authors in version -06.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
> The document does not require any formal review

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
> Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
> All the normative references are published RFC or approved for publication.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
> None

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the  document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
> No RFC status is updated by this document.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
> The drafts defines new PCEP objects, PCEP TLVs,  Error types and Values. They are all correctly indicated in the IANA section with reference to the right registries.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
> All the registries to be updated are identified by the “IETF review” registration procedure.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
> No automated check performed.
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Parked WG Document
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2018-10-01
08 Jonathan Hardwick Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2018-05-14
08 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-08.txt
2018-05-14
08 (System) New version approved
2018-05-14
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2018-05-14
08 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-11-20
07 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-07.txt
2017-11-20
07 (System) New version approved
2017-11-20
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ramon Casellas , Young Lee
2017-11-20
07 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2017-06-19
06 (System) Document has expired
2017-04-10
06 Jonathan Hardwick This draft is ready to be submitted to the IESG.
Waiting for draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions before submitting for publication.
2017-04-10
06 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to Parked WG Document from In WG Last Call
2017-01-12
06 Daniele Ceccarelli Changed document writeup
2016-12-16
06 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-06.txt
2016-12-16
06 (System) New version approved
2016-12-16
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Young Lee" , "Ramon Casellas"
2016-12-16
06 Young Lee Uploaded new revision
2016-11-22
05 Jonathan Hardwick IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2016-11-22
05 Jonathan Hardwick Notification list changed to "Daniele Ceccarelli" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
2016-11-22
05 Jonathan Hardwick Document shepherd changed to Daniele Ceccarelli
2016-08-15
05 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-05.txt
2016-02-11
04 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04.txt
2015-07-21
03 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-03.txt
2015-06-01
02 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-02.txt
2013-11-06
01 Julien Meuric Set of documents this document replaces changed to draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext from None
2013-07-12
01 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-01.txt
2013-04-02
00 Young Lee New version available: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-00.txt