OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing
RFC 5787

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, 
    ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ietf.org>, 
    ccamp chair <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing' to Experimental RFC

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'OSPFv2 Routing Protocols Extensions for ASON Routing '
   <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-09.txt> as an Experimental RFC

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Ross Callon.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:

Technical Summary

  The ITU-T has defined an architecture and requirements for operating
  an Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON).

  The Generalized Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) protocol suite
  is designed to provide a control plane for a range of network
  technologies including optical networks such as time division
  multiplexing (TDM) networks including SONET/SDH and Optical Transport
  Networks (OTNs), and lambda switching optical networks.

  The requirements for GMPLS routing to satisfy the requirements of
  ASON routing, and an evaluation of existing GMPLS routing protocols
  are provided in other documents. This document defines to the OSPFv2
  Link State Routing Protocol to meet the routing requirements for
  routing in an ASON.

  Note that this work is scoped to the requirements and evaluation
  expressed in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652 and the ITU-T Recommendations
  current when those documents were written. Future extensions of
  revisions of this work may be necessary if the ITU-T Recommendations
  are revised or if new requirements are introduced into a revision of
  RFC 4258.

Working Group Summary

  As noted above, although concerns were raised about the completeness of

  RFC 4258 that sets out the requirements, it has been agreed that this 
  I-D should progress while work continues to revise that RFC. If 
  changes or additions should be required as a result of the revision of 
  RFC 4258, this work can be revised in the future.

Document Quality

  There are no known implementations or planned implementations of this


  The Document Shepherd is Deborah Brungard.
  The Responsible AD is Adrian Farrel.