Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
(Adrian Farrel) Yes
Comment (2013-09-04 for -14)
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
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2013-09-12 for -14)
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?
(Richard Barnes) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
Comment (2013-09-06 for -14)
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.