A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) with Impairments
draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-10

[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Wassim Haddad on 13-Dec-2011 raised one
  editorial comment.  Please consider it:

  - In Security considerations section: s/maybe/may be/

[Ballot comment]
== Missing Reference: 'Eppstein' is mentioned on line 1020, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5920' is mentioned on line 1138, but not defined

[Ballot comment]
I am left wondering why this document is being published in the IETF instead of elsewhere and then later referred to by a GMPLS document that will use this terminology and framework, but I can say that I do not have a clue about the technology and am therefore deferring to others to review the content of this document.

[Ballot comment]
Bert  Wijnen made the following comment (that I support) in his OPS-DIR review:

As the document writeup states:

  This document is an informational framework with nothing to implement.
  There are a number of drafts being progressed that address various
  aspects of the framework.

So it would be those documents being progressed that would have to include any discussion about operational or manageability aspects of the various solutions.

At the other hand, it might have been useful if this document would have touched upon some operational/manageability aspects for each of the possible solutions. It seems clear that there are different characteristics depending on which solution is chosen. Specifically the talk about "black links" makes me worried that solutions can become complex and less interoperable.

[Ballot comment]
Bert  Wijnen made the following comment (that I support) in his OPS-DIr report:

As the document writeup states:

  This document is an informational framework with nothing to implement.
  There are a number of drafts being progressed that address various
  aspects of the framework.

So it would be those documents being progressed that would have to include any discussion about operational or manageability aspects of the various solutions.

At the other hand, it might have been useful if this document would have touched upon some operational/manageability aspects for each of the possible solutions. It seems clear that there are different characteristics depending on which solution is chosen. Specifically the talk about "black links" makes me worried that solutions can become complex and less interoperable.

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON) with Impairments) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
  (WSON) with Impairments'
  as an 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 2011-10-11. 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

As an optical signal progresses along its path it may be altered by
the various physical processes in the optical fibers and devices it
encounters. When such alterations result in signal degradation, these
processes are usually referred to as "impairments". These physical
characteristics may be important constraints to consider when using a
GMPLS control plane to support path setup and maintenance in
wavelength switched optical networks.

This document provides a framework for applying GMPLS protocols and
the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical
networks. This document does not define optical data plane aspects;
impairment parameters, measurement of, or assessment and
qualification of a route, but rather it describes the architectural
and information components for protocol solutions.



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

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments/


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

PROTO-write-up for: draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-07.txt
Intended status: Informational

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Deborah Brungard is the Document Shepherd.
She has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to
the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

Yes. No concerns. The WG Last Call was cc'd with the PCE WG. Additionally, liaisons were
exchanged with SG15 on data plane aspects.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns or additional review needed.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns or issues.

(1.e) 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?

There is solid consensus behind this document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks
are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. No issues identified by idnits. No other reviews are required.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Split looks good.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

Not applicable.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Not applicable.

(1.k) 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 applying GMPLS protocols and
the PCE architecture to support Impairment Aware Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (IA-RWA) in wavelength switched optical
networks. This document does not define optical data plane aspects;
impairment parameters, measurement of, or assessment and
qualification of a route, but rather it describes the architectural
and information components for protocol solutions.

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?

No. The document is considered to be both stable and
complete.

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 is informational.