Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-24

[Ballot comment]
A couple of minor, non-blocking comments that I hope you'll consider:

-- Section 2 --
As RFC 6163 is used to define necessary terminology, I think it's a normative reference.

-- Section 3 --
I found the first paragraph here to be confusing: one thing can't be grouped into multiple categories, and "regardless" seems not the right word.  Also, the sentence (ending in ":") that introduces the list doesn't have anything to do with the list it introduces.

May I propose this instead, and let you fix it if I don't have it quite right?:

OLD
  The WSON RWA information model in this document is grouped into four
  categories regardless of whether they stem from a switching
  subsystem or from a line subsystem. A switching subsystem refers to
  WSON nodes such as ROADM or Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (OADM) and
  a line subsystem refers to devices such as WDM or Optical Amplifier:
NEW
  The WSON RWA information model in this document comprises four
  categories of information. The categories are independent of
  whether the information comes from a switching subsystem or from a
  line subsystem -- a switching subsystem refers to WSON nodes such as
  ROADM or Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (OADM), and a line subsystem
  refers to devices such as WDM or Optical Amplifier. The categories
  are these:
END

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-22, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

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

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

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:  (Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks) to Informational RFC

The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
  Switched Optical 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 2014-11-27. (This last call is extended as it
spans the period of IETF-91). 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 model of information needed by the routing
  and wavelength assignment (RWA) process in wavelength switched
  optical networks (WSONs).  The purpose of the information described
  in this model is to facilitate constrained lightpath computation in
  WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints
  between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not
  include constraints due to optical impairments. Aspects of this
  information that may be of use to other technologies utilizing a
  GMPLS control plane are discussed.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1672/
  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1662/

AD review
=======

Hi,

I've done my usual AD review of this draft as part of the publication
request process. The purpose of my review is to catch issues that would
otherwise get in the way during IETF last call and IESG review.

This document is quite readable: thank you. I have no comments that need
to delay the document, and I will start the IETF last call.

However, I do have a number of small issues that are essentially
editorial. I've attached these below and will re-send them as part of the
IETF last call so that you can collect them and fix them in any revision
after the end of IETF last call.

Thanks for the work,
Adrian

====

It would be nice to do a little post-processing to your text file to
arrange the RBNF to make it slightly easier to read. Of course, the
semantics would not change, so this is not essential: just nice.

---

Figures 1 and 2 would benefit from a statement that "Rb" is a resource
block.

---

Figure 2 has a couple of stray '+' signs on the left-hand edge of the
output matrix box.

---

Page 10

   

is missing a '>'

---

In 5.3.1 please

s/draft/document/  twice.

---

I wonder whether you want to add a reference to RFC7308 in Section 6.1.
I don't think this makes any difference to the validity of the section,
but it may be helpful when data models based on this information model
are built.

---

Should 6.5 also have a reference to ISIS TE?

---

Page 15

You need to separate the RBNF from the end of the first paragraph

---

The question for section 8 is: are there any security elements that
need to be in your information model? Security qualities of links
and nodes? Security capabilities of links and nodes?

---

Section 3 has a reference to [G.7715] but this is not shown in the
references section.

---

[G.707], [G.709], and [G.Sup39] are listed as references, but not used.

---

s/Author's Addresses/Authors' Addresses/

Write up for draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info

> 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)?

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 model of information needed by the routing
and wavelength assignment (RWA) process in wavelength switched
optical networks (WSONs).  The purpose of the information described
in this model is to facilitate constrained lightpath computation in
WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints
between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not
include constraints due to optical impairments. Aspects of this
information that may be of use to other technologies utilizing a
GMPLS control plane are discussed.

> 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?

This topic been discussed in the WG for a very long time, perhaps 6
years.  Support for the work has been tepid, but there are multiple
sets of contributors who would like to see the work result in proposed
standards.

> 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 RFCs for which there are implementations, but does not
itself define any protocol mechanisms.  The existing RFCs include
RFC3471, RFC3473, RFC4202, RFC4203.  This work is based on RFC6163.

> 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 an extended WG last calls.
The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This
document is part of a set of documents on WSON and final publication --
and at the AD's discretion, IETF LC -- should occur as a set.
The documents set includes:
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info
    draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
    draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf
    draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

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

No. 

> (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 WGs chairs were consulted. (But
didn't offer any input.)

> (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.

IPR has been disclosed for this document. This disclosure  resulted in a
number of messages on the list, including
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13052.html and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg13081.html

No suggestion of changing the WG document solution resulted from the
discussion. 

> (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? 

Good 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.

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.

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.

This document contains RBNF as defined in RFC5511.  There are no automated
tools for the validation of such, but RBNF was reviewed and discussed as
part of last call.

Prepration for WG last call.

IPR declariations.

diego caviglia (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15005.html)
anders.gavler ()
jonas.martensson()
i-nishioka(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15008.html)
lyong (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15016.html)
cyril.margaria(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15013.html)
greg bernstein()
leeyoung (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14984.html)
dan li (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14995.html)
imajuku wataru ()

Prepration for WG last call.

IPR declariations.

diego caviglia (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15005.html)
anders.gavler ()
jonas.martensson()
i-nishioka(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg15008.html)
lyong ()
cyril.margaria()
greg bernstein()
leeyoung (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14984.html)
dan li (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg14995.html)
imajuku wataru ()