Subject: [CCAMP] WSON document editing meeting?

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:06:16 -0700

Hi CCAMPers interested in WSON,
at some of the past IETF meetings we arranged official editing meetings 
to discuss current WSON working group documents.
With the the CCAMP agenda very tight discussion will be by necessity 
limited.  Is there interest in such a session? In the past with WG chair 
and AD approval we were able to get a room with projector... Note ground 
rules for such a meeting are set by the WG chairs and AD, though they 
don't necessarily attend.

Monday could work before the PCE meeting at 17:40... The CCAMP meeting 
is on Tuesday morning

Some of the WG drafts and potential discussion topics are listed below:

Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical 
Networks (WSON) 
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-02.txt> 
(109918 bytes)
Issue: should we include the generalization to OEO switches, 
regenerators, and wavelength here? The draft  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signal-00.txt 
suggests a fairly rigorous, ITU-T compatible approach
that we could discuss in more depth.

Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength 
Switched Optical Networks 
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-03.txt> (39254 bytes)
We could discuss in more detail the generalization added based on the 
requests from the San Francisco meeting.

Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength 
Switched Optical Networks 
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-02.txt> (69208 
bytes)
This would be a good time and place to get into the bits and bytes of 
the encoding of this stuff.

A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks 
(WSON) with Impairments 
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments-00.txt> (77723 
bytes)
A number of suggestions have come in on next steps with this new WG 
document, it would be good to discuss them.

Regards

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:03:00 -0400

Greg,

>In the past with WG chair and AD approval we were able to get a room
>with projector.

We still have the room reserved for our 2nd session.  Would you like to
use that?  I certainly don't see any issues should you choose this
option. (Although I haven't conferred with Deborah or our AD on this.)

> requests from the San Francisco meeting.

I think you missed the point being made.  The question is what part of
the work being done for WSON can be generalized to be technology
agnostic.  I.e., take into consideration the spirit of GMPLS and the
CCAMP WG rather than the optical specific IPO WG.

Lou

On 7/20/2009 12:06 PM, Greg Bernstein wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:11:08 -0700

Hi Lou, we understand the generalizations are for other technologies 
beyond optical.
After a bunch of discussion on this in San Francisco, there were some 
discussion of SONET/SDH rings on the list that had similar constraints 
but we didn't get any non-TDM or non-optical inputs from the list. We 
did put information on the general applicability of the existing optical 
related mechanisms in the optical documents.
Does it make sense to separate these into a non-optical document? The 
applications seemed more theoretical than real.

I'll be back in the states by Friday so won't be able to attend a 
editing session then.

Regards

Greg