Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-15

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for writing this document, and it is generally ready to move forward. However, I was concerned with one minor detail which seems that there is some unclarity with a term.

First, the document says:

  LO ODU: Lower Order ODU. The LO ODUj (j can be 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4,
  flex.) represents the container transporting a client of the OTN that
  is either directly mapped into an OTUk (k = j) or multiplexed into a
  server HO ODUk (k > j) container.

  HO ODU: Higher Order ODU. The HO ODUk (k can be 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4.)
  represents the entity transporting a multiplex of LO ODUj tributary
  signals in its OPUk area.

and then later, it says:

  With the evolution and
  deployment of OTN technology many new features have been specified in
  ITU-T recommendations, including for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4
  and ODUflex containers as described in [G709-2012].

But it is unclear if this is referring to LO or HO ODUs or both, or something else. Could this be clarified, or did I missunderstand something?

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for writing this document, and it is generally ready to move forward. However, I was concerned with one minor detail which seems that there is some unclarity with a term.

First, the document says:

  LO ODU: Lower Order ODU. The LO ODUj (j can be 0, 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4,
  flex.) represents the container transporting a client of the OTN that
  is either directly mapped into an OTUk (k = j) or multiplexed into a
  server HO ODUk (k > j) container.

  HO ODU: Higher Order ODU. The HO ODUk (k can be 1, 2, 2e, 3, 4.)
  represents the entity transporting a multiplex of LO ODUj tributary
  signals in its OPUk area.

and then later, it says:

  With the evolution and
  deployment of OTN technology many new features have been specified in
  ITU-T recommendations, including for example, new ODU0, ODU2e, ODU4
  and ODUflex containers as described in [G709-2012].

But it is unclear if this is referring to LO or HO ODUs or both, or something else. Could this be clarified, or did I missunderstand something?

[Ballot comment]
In 4.1. Connection management of the ODU

  In this case, an operator may choose to allow the underlined OCh

Could "underlined" be a typo for "underlying"? I didn't see anything in Figure 4 that looked like underlying ...

  layer to be visible to the ODU routing/path computation process in
  which case the topology would be as shown in Figure 4. In Figure 3
  below, instead, a cloud representing OCh capable switching nodes is
  represented. In Figure 3, the operator choice is to hide the real OCh
  layer network topology.


          Link #5            +---------+            Link #4
    +------------------------|        |-----------------------+
    |                  +----| ODXC    |----+                  |
    |                +-++  +---------+  ++-+                |
    |        Node f  |  |    Node E      |  |  Node g        |
    |                +-++                ++-+                |
    |                  |      +--+        |                  |
  +-+-----+        +----+----+--|  |--+-----+---+        +-----+-+
  |      |Link #1 |        |  +--+  |        |Link #3 |      |
  |      +--------+        | Node h |        +--------+      |
  | ODXC  |        | ODXC    +--------+ ODXC    |        | ODXC  |
  +-------+        +---------+ Link #2+---------+        +-------+
    Node A            Node B            Node C            Node D


    Figure 4 - OCh Visible Topology for LO ODUj connection management

Later in the same section, the word "underlying" is used, so I'm guessing "underlined" was a typo.

  In the examples (i.e., Figure 3 and Figure 4), we have considered the
  case in which LO ODUj connections are supported by OCh connection,
  and the case in which the supporting underlying connection can be
  also made by a combination of HO ODU/OCh connections.

Is Malcolm's affiliation in the Contributors section correct? I was remembering him being at ZTE, although people do move.

[Ballot comment]
The following comments were made by Tomonori Takeda during his Routing Directorate review. We need to pick them up and make a few editorial changes before publication.

1) In Section 5.3., it says the following requirement for GMPLS routing.
-  Support different priorities for resource reservation

I think this is a valid requirement, but I do not think this is specific to OTN.
Does this imply the need for protocol extensions or just the usage of protocols?

2) Section 5.4., it says:

      Furthermore, since multiplexing hierarchy was not allowed
      by the legacy OTN referenced by [RFC4328], ....

By reading RFC4328 section 2, it refers to ODU multiplexing. Am I missing something?

3) In Section 5.5., it says.

      Note that this case is supported by the procedures defined in
      [RFC3473] as a different Switching Capability/Type value is
      used for the different control plane versions.

I am not sure which part of RFC3473 metions such procedures. Could you please point it?

o Nits:
Section 4.1
s/Lo ODU/LO ODU/

Section 4.1
s/substitute/substituted

Section 5.6
s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. 

IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport
  Networks'
  as Informational RFC

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 2013-09-02. 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 a framework to allow the development of
  protocol extensions to support Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
  Switching (GMPLS) and Path Computation Element (PCE) control of
  Optical Transport Networks (OTN) as specified in ITU-T Recommendation
  G.709 as published in 2012.






The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework/ballot/


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

AD Review
========
Thanks for this document. It is really well-written and a good read.
I am sure a lot of effort went into it, so many thanks for the
attention you have given to getting it right.

I have two requests for small additions to the document and a couple
of nits.  Obviously, these comments are up for debate, but until then
I have placed the document in "Revised I-D Needed" state.  Once we
resolve these issues or you post a new revision I will issue IETF last
call.

Thanks,
Adrian

===


Please add a new section to provide a discussion of network management
and OAM.  A way to approach this is to look at Appendix A of RFC 5706
and use that to guide to what you should write. Alternatively, you could
use RFC 6123 to give you guidance and structure.

This information is more important in the framework document than in the
protocol documents because it will set the scene correctly. A lot of
this can probably be done by reference to existing documentation, and a
total of only a few paragraphs will probably suffice.

I suggest this goes in as Section 5.7 "Implications for Management of
GMPLS Networks"

---

"OTN" needs to be expanded on first use in the Introduction.

---

The phrase "OTN network" seems to be redundant.

---

Section 7 should talk about whether the DCN is likely to be in the
overhead and therefore in-fiber.  This approach, together with access
lists at the network edges, provides a significant security feature.

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This document provides background and outlines needed modifications
to exiting protocols, but does not itself define any protocol
mechanisms or behaviors.

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

> (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
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.

This document provides a framework for protocol extensions to
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and Path
Computation Element (PCE) to support the control of Optical
Transport Networks (OTN) specified in ITU-T Recommendation
G.709 as published in 2012. A previous version of G.709 was
supported by RFC4328.  This document is one of four
informational and standards track documents going through the
publication process as a set.

> Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

Not for this document.

> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?

This document provides background and an approach to extending
exiting RFC for which there are implementations, but does not
itself define any protocol mechanisms.  The existing RFCs include
RFC3471, RFC3473, RFC4202, RFC4203, RFC4204, RFC4328, RFC4655.

> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Lou Berger

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Adrian Farrel

> (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 Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as it has
progressed through the CCAMP WG, including as part of two WG last
calls.  The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.  As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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.

As part of the 2nd WG LC, both the OSPF and PCE WGs were
notified.

> (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 specific 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, via messages to/on the CCAMP WG list.

> (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 has been disclosed for 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? 

Strong among interested parties. No objections from others.

> (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.)

Not to my knowledge.

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

The document passes tools idnits.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

> (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?

None.

> (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.

No.

> (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.

As this is just an informative document, this document does not
change the status of any existing RFCs.

> (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).

As this is just an informative document, there is no IANA section.

> (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.

N/A

> (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.

N/A

IPR statement received:
malcolm.betts at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13989.html
Pietro Grandi  -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14037.html
Eve Varma  -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14038.html

IPR statement missing:
lihan at chinamobile.com --
hanjianrui at huawei.com --

IPR statement  received:

zhangfatai at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13959.html
huawei.danli at huawei.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13964.html
sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.it -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13970.html
daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com -- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13943.html

IPR statement missing:

lihan at chinamobile.com --
hanjianrui at huawei.com --
malcolm.betts at huawei.com --

Waiting on IPR statements:

zhangfatai at huawei.com, huawei.danli at huawei.com, lihan at chinamobile.com, sergio.belotti at alcatel-lucent.it, daniele.ceccarelli at ericsson.com, hanjianrui at huawei.com, malcolm.betts at huawei.com

See http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13935.html