Subject: [CCAMP] WSON document status and next steps...

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:54:50 -0700

Hi CCAMPers interested in WSON, it's been about three years since the 
WSON enhancements to GMPLS got started. The non-impairment related WSON 
drafts have been fairly stable for some time. Here is the status and 
recommended next steps to the best of the authors knowledge:

*Document Title
* 	*File Link*
	*Last Update*
	*Next Steps*
Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical 
Networks (WSON)
	draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-06 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework/> 
2010-04-07
	Last call finished, CCAMP chairs processing
Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength 
Switched Optical Networks
	draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-07 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info/> 	2010-02-18
	*Ready for last call.*
General Network Element Constraint Encoding for GMPLS Controlled Networks
	draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-01 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode/> 
	2010-03-02
	*Ready for last call.*
Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Encoding for Wavelength 
Switched Optical Networks
	draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-04 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/> 
2010-02-18
	*Ready for last call.*

As you can see /there are three drafts that the authors consider ready 
for last call and would like to proceed/. Please send comments, 
questions, or concerns about the above drafts (excluding Framework) to 
the list so we can discuss prior to IETF-78 in Maastrich. Per working 
group agreement the documents flow from general/abstract to more 
specific any issues should be addressed at the highest level of 
abstraction possible rather than the lowest, i.e., info model first, 
then encoding drafts, then protocol specific drafts.

The most specific being the following two OSPF protocol related drafts:

Document Title
	File Link
	Last Update
	Next Steps
OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for 
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
	draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-01 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf/> 
	2010-03-05
	Will be ready for last call after the RWA WSON encode
OSPF Extensions in Support of Routing and Wavelength Assignment (RWA) in 
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)
	draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf-03 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf/> 
	2010-03-04
	Individual draft aligned with General Constraint Encoding. *Ready to be 
a WG draft*

It should be noted that draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-04 
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/> 
provides a robust and efficient modeling of regeneration (OEO) and other 
processing pools within an optical switch or ROADM. More extensive 
examples of the modeling power are available in the document 
http://www.grotto-networking.com/sites/default/files/ModelingSwitchesConvertersRegensV02f.pdf 
<http://www.grotto-networking.com/sites/default/files/ModelingSwitchesConvertersRegensV02f.pdf>which 
provides better graphics than available via ASCII and extended 
discussion not usually part of an IETF document. Please review the WG 
draft and bring any issues to the CCAMP list if you feel you've found a 
situation that cannot be adequately modeled with these existing mechanisms.

 From the minutes of the IETF-77 Anaheim meeting there was an issue on 
"directionless ROADMs". This turns out to be a terminology issue. 
Directionless ROADMs are those whose add/drop ports are not bound to a 
particular line side ingress/egress port. These are also known as "add 
per node" ROADMs to be distinguished from "add per port" ROADMs. Though 
the terminology is not standardized these ROADMs are well (and easily) 
modeled via the techniques in the framework and an example is 
illustrated in  Figure 2 of the WSON framework document.

Best Regards

Greg B. and  WSON co-authors

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

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:07:28 -0400

Greg/Young,
	Glad to see that you're still focused on getting these documents 
through the WG.  In Anaheim we had an off-line discussion  about another 
revision of the (generic) encoding related documents.  Are you you 
saying that you no longer think this revision is needed?  What happened 
to address the discussed points?

Much thanks,
Lou

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:28:16 -0500

Hi Lou,

We have just updated the generic constraint encoding draft per our
discussion in the 77th IETF. We cleaned up all wson specific terminology and
added a few texts to generalize the requirements. With this updated version,
co-authors of this draft believe it is ready for working group last call. 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02.txt

Thanks. 

Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:07 PM
To: Greg Bernstein
Cc: CCAMP; Young Lee
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WSON document status and next steps...

Greg/Young,

Much thanks,
Lou

> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-01
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode/

---

From: Young Lee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:12:20 -0500

Hi CCAMPers,

We just have updated the following draft, "General Network Element
Constraint Encoding for GMPLS controlled Networks." 

With this update, the co-authors of the document believe it is ready for
working group last call. Thanks.

Young

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Greg Bernstein
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:55 PM
To: CCAMP
Subject: [CCAMP] WSON document status and next steps...

Hi CCAMPers interested in WSON, it's been about three years since the WSON
enhancements to GMPLS got started. The non-impairment related WSON drafts
have been fairly stable for some time. Here is the status and recommended
next steps to the best of the authors knowledge:

Document Title

File Link

Last Update

Next Steps

Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
(WSON)

2010-04-07

Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched
Optical Networks

draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-07
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info/> 

2010-02-18

Ready for last call.

2010-03-02

Ready for last call.

2010-02-18

Ready for last call.

As you can see there are three drafts that the authors consider ready for
last call and would like to proceed. Please send comments, questions, or
concerns about the above drafts (excluding Framework) to the list so we can
discuss prior to IETF-78 in Maastrich. Per working group agreement the
documents flow from general/abstract to more specific any issues should be
addressed at the highest level of abstraction possible rather than the
lowest, i.e., info model first, then encoding drafts, then protocol specific
drafts. 

Document Title

File Link

Last Update

Next Steps

OSPF Enhancement for Signal and Network Element Compatibility for Wavelength
Switched Optical Networks

draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf-01
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-
ospf/> 

2010-03-05

2010-03-04

Individual draft aligned with General Constraint Encoding. Ready to be a WG
draft

It should be noted that draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode-04
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode/>
provides a robust and efficient modeling of regeneration (OEO) and other
processing pools within an optical switch or ROADM. More extensive examples
of the modeling power are available in the document
http://www.grotto-networking.com/sites/default/files/ModelingSwitchesConvert
ersRegensV02f.pdf which provides better graphics than available via ASCII
and extended discussion not usually part of an IETF document. Please review
the WG draft and bring any issues to the CCAMP list if you feel you've found
a situation that cannot be adequately modeled with these existing
mechanisms.

"directionless ROADMs". This turns out to be a terminology issue.
Directionless ROADMs are those whose add/drop ports are not bound to a
particular line side ingress/egress port. These are also known as "add per
node" ROADMs to be distinguished from "add per port" ROADMs. Though the
terminology is not standardized these ROADMs are well (and easily) modeled
via the techniques in the framework and an example is illustrated in  Figure
2 of the WSON framework document.

Best Regards

---

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:11:35 -0700

Good catch Lou and Young, we had done the update to /general constraints 
encoding/ over two months ago but  somehow it  didn't make it from our 
hard disk to the IETF server :-( . The updated list of documents ready 
for  last call is:

*Document Title
* 	*File Link*
	*Last Update*
	*Next Steps*
	draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode-02> 
	*2010-06-09*

Best Regards