Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-07

[Ballot comment]

- (Nearly a discuss) Section 7 refers back to RFC5920
(from 5 years ago) and RFC6163 (presumably the 3 paragraph
section 7) and also claims that there is "no substantial
reason to to expect the security considerations to be any
different." That's pretty unimpressive to be honest. Don't
you think it'd be reasonable to expect that a new
architecture, framework and set of protocols for high
speed networks should today include a thorough security
and privacy analysis done afresh and not simply referring
back to previous work? For example, is it not likely that
in some cases new IGP security primitives might be needed,
or that virtualisation and data centre trends would mean
that some additional isolation between different folks'
data was desirable or that some kind of automated key
management be finally required to be included from the
start of the design of any new control plane? (This isn't
a discuss as it's probably better to hold that kind of
discussion for a next stage when some architecture or
protocols are defined.)

- typo: trnaponders, I like it:-)

[Ballot comment]
To folluw up on the recent OPS-DIR reveiw by Tina Tsou:

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

Technical Comments:
This document provides a complete framework for GMPLS flexi-grid network. Technical comments are as follow:
1. It is not clear how the parameter n are determined.
In page 22 the last two paragraphs are as follow:
o  Each downstream node ensures that m is >= requested_m.
o  A downstream node cannot foresee what an upstream node will allocate.  A way to ensure that the effective frequency slot is valid along the length of the LSP is to ensure that the same value of n is allocated at each hop.  By forcing the same value of n we avoid cases where the effective frequency slot of the media channel is invalid (that is, the resulting frequency slot cannot be described by its n and m parameters).

When mentioning “a downstream nod cannot foresee…”, it should be clear that what the downstream node can receive from upstream adjacent node (probably in PATH message). Do downstream node(s) need to select an effective central frequency (n) from a set of them? And what is corresponding criteria? Random selection? It may be a little bit ‘solution’ instead of ‘framework & requirement’, however, it is mentioned ‘forcing the same value of n’ (should consider changing to ‘standard track’ if new node behavior introduced), so it had better to specify what kind of information is included in both request message (PATH) and response message (RESV).
Moreover, if Path message include any central frequency information (n), or a set of them, the Path message in Fig. 15 and 16 should be shown as Path(n, m_req).

2. Section 5.5, the support for neighbor discovery should not be a MAY, consider a SHALL or even MUST.


Editorial Comments:
1. Some terminologies are misleading. There are a few places using term ‘frequency slot width’, which confuses the reader (can be either understand of frequency slot or slot width) and should be corrected.
In Section 4.5 (p21), first paragraph in page 21, there are two ‘frequency slot width’, should be corrected as ‘frequency slot’.
In Section 5.1.1 (p30), second paragraph, there is one ‘frequency slot width’, should be corrected as ‘slot width’.
In Section 5.2 (p31), first paragraph, there is one ‘frequency slot width’, should be corrected as ‘slot width’.

2. The description of Fig. 3, now saying “The ‘^’ represents the slot nominal central frequency”, it is not clear what is ‘slot nominal central frequency’, should be ‘nominal central frequency’ or ‘the position of nominal central frequency’.

3. Figure 15 and 16 are labeled as ‘Distributed Allocation with Different m and Same/Different n’ respectively, however it is not clear why we need to mention ‘distributed’. There is no centralized mechanism in this draft, suggest removing the ‘distributed’.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed [draft-enter-here], which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-based control of Flexi-grid DWDM
  networks'
  as 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 2015-07-23. 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


  To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for high
  bit-rate systems, the International Telecommunication Union
  Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended its
  Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new dense wavelength
  division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal
  central frequencies, channel spacings and the concept of "frequency
  slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched
  based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the
  optical spectrum creating what is known as a flexible grid (flexi-
  grid).

  This document defines a framework and the associated control plane
  requirements for the GMPLS-based control of flexi-grid DWDM networks.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk/ballot/


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

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-04

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
>    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
>    indicated in the title page header?

This document is requested for publication as an Informational document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the framework for
a network and high-level requirements for control plane extensions.
Although the document contains some RFC 2119 language, this is limited
to very high-level network requirements. The appropriate track for this
document has been extensively discussed on the WG mailing list and with
the Chairs and Responsible AD.

This track is noted in the document header.

> (2) 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:

To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for high
bit-rate systems, the International Telecommunication Union
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended its
Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new dense wavelength
division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal
central frequencies, channel spacings and the concept of "frequency
slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched
based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the
optical spectrum creating what is known as a flexible grid (flexi-
grid).

This document defines a framework and the associated control plane
requirements for the GMPLS-based control of flexi-grid DWDM networks.

> Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received
some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There was some early and intense discussion about whether to include
capabilities for data plane features under development in, but not yet
standardised by, the ITU-T. The WG came to consensus that these must
remain out of scope for now.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

> Document Quality:

The work has had contributions from a large group of people. This
arises from the combination of a number of drafts, and also from great
early interest in the work. Additionally, the work has had external
review from the IDEALIST EU project that is making multiple inter-
operating implementions of a GMPLS control plane for flexi-grid.

> Personnel:

Matt Hartley is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
>    by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is
>    not ready for publication, please explain why the document is
>    being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the
document and believes it is ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
>    or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
>    from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
>    complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If
>    so, describe the review that took place.

No such content.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
>    Shepherd has 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.

No such concerns.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
>    of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain
>    why?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that
they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
>    IPR disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

> (9) 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?

See (2).
There has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus
on the document.

> (10) 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
>      publicly available.)

No threats or discontent.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>      document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
>      Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
>      this check needs to be thorough.

idnits is clean appart from false positives.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>      criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
>      reviews.

No such reviews needed.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>      either normative or informative?

All references correctly identified.

> (14) 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 plan for their
>      completion?

None such.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see
>      RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support
>      the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

idnits warns about normative references to ITU Recommendations as
potential downrefs, but everything is OK.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>      existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
>      listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If
>      the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction,
>      explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
>      relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed.
>      If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
>      considers it unnecessary.

No issues.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
>      considerations section, especially with regard to its
>      consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all
>      protocol extensions that the document makes are associated
>      with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
>      that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>      identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
>      a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
>      registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
>      are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
>      been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document contains a "null" IANA considerations section. This is
appropriate.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
>      future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
>      would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
>      registries.

None such.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>      Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a
>      formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions,
>      etc.

Appropriate review of RBNF section, no concerns.

Document shepherd write-up for draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-04

> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
>    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
>    Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC
>    indicated in the title page header?

This document is requested for publication as an Informational document.

This is appropriate because the document describes the framework for
a network and high-level requirements for control plane extensions.
Although the document contains some RFC 2119 language, this is limited
to very high-level network requirements. The appropriate track for this
document has been extensively discussed on the WG mailing list and with
the Chairs and Responsible AD.

This track is noted in the document header.

> (2) 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:

To allow efficient allocation of optical spectral bandwidth for high
bit-rate systems, the International Telecommunication Union
Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) has extended its
Recommendations G.694.1 and G.872 to include a new dense wavelength
division multiplexing (DWDM) grid by defining a set of nominal
central frequencies, channel spacings and the concept of "frequency
slot".  In such an environment, a data plane connection is switched
based on allocated, variable-sized frequency ranges within the
optical spectrum creating what is known as a flexible grid (flexi-
grid).

This document defines a framework and the associated control plane
requirements for the GMPLS-based control of flexi-grid DWDM networks.

> Working Group Summary:

This document has been reviewed by the CCAMP working group and received
some comments at IETF meetings and on the mailing list.

There was some early and intense discussion about whether to include
capabilities for data plane features under development in, but not yet
standardised by, the ITU-T. The WG came to consensus that these must
remain out of scope for now.

There were no problems with consensus for this document.

> Document Quality:

The work has had contributions from a large group of people. This
arises from the combination of a number of drafts, and also from great
early interest in the work. Additionally, the work has had external
review from the IDEALIST EU project that is making multiple inter-
operating implementions of a GMPLS control plane for flexi-grid.

> Personnel:

Matt Hartley is the Document Shepherd
Deborah Brungard is the Responsible Area Director

> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed
>    by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is
>    not ready for publication, please explain why the document is
>    being forwarded to the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the current revision of the
document and believes it is ready for publication.

> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
>    or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No concerns.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or
>    from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
>    complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If
>    so, describe the review that took place.

No such content.

> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
>    Shepherd has 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.

No such concerns.

> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
>    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
>    of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain
>    why?

The WG chairs chased all authors and contributors for statements that
they had complied with IETF IPR policy. All responded.

> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
>    If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the
>    IPR disclosures.

No disclosures have been made.

> (9) 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?

See (2).
There has been substantial and broad review. There is good consensus
on the document.

> (10) 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
>      publicly available.)

No threats or discontent.

> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
>      document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
>      Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
>      this check needs to be thorough.

idnits is clean appart from false positives.

> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
>      criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
>      reviews.

No such reviews needed.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
>      either normative or informative?

All references correctly identified.

> (14) 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 plan for their
>      completion?

None such.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see
>      RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support
>      the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

idnits warns about normative references to ITU Recommendations as
potential downrefs, but everything is OK.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
>      existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
>      listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If
>      the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction,
>      explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
>      relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed.
>      If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG
>      considers it unnecessary.

No issues.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
>      considerations section, especially with regard to its
>      consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all
>      protocol extensions that the document makes are associated
>      with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
>      that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
>      identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include
>      a detailed specification of the initial contents for the
>      registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
>      are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has
>      been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document contains a "null" IANA considerations section. This is
appropriate.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
>      future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
>      would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
>      registries.

None such.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
>      Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a
>      formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions,
>      etc.

No such sections.

IPR poll - COMPLETED

IPR poll (Daniele) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16978.html

AUTHORS
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17074.html
Ramon Casellas ramon.casellas@cttc.es http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16979.html
Fatai Zhang zhangfatai@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16988.html
Xihua Fu fu.xihua@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16984.html
Daniele Ceccarelli daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16981.html
Iftekhar Hussain ihussain@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16985.html

CONTRIBUTORS
Adrian Farrel adrian@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16995.html
Daniel King daniel@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17041.html
Xian Zhang zhang.xian@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17002.html
Cyril Margaria cmargaria@juniper.net http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17062.html
Qilei Wang wang.qilei@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16991.html
Malcolm Betts malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17063.html
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16987.html
Yao Li liyao@nju.edu.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17080.html
Fei Zhang zhangfei7@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17075.html
Lei Wang wang.lei@bupt.edu.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17081.html
Guoying Zhang zhangguoying@ritt.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17072.html
Takehiro Tsuritani tsuri@kddilabs.jp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16986.html
Lei Liu leiliu@ucdavis.edu http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16990.html
Eve Varma eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16989.html
Young Lee ylee@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17061.html
Jianrui Han hanjianrui@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17068.html
Sharfuddin Syed ssyed@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17067.html
Rajan Rao rrao@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17065.html
Marco Sosa msosa@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17066.html
Biao Lu blu@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17069.html
Abinder Dhillon adhillon@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17078.html
Felipe Jimenez Arribas felipe.jimenezarribas@telefonica.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17078.html
Andrew G.  Malis agmalis@gmail.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17060.html
Huub van Helvoort huubatwork@gmail.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16982.html

IPR polling in preparation for last call

IPR poll (Daniele) http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16978.html

AUTHORS
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios oscar.gonzalezdedios@telefonica.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17074.html
Ramon Casellas ramon.casellas@cttc.es http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16979.html
Fatai Zhang zhangfatai@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16988.html
Xihua Fu fu.xihua@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16984.html
Daniele Ceccarelli daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16981.html
Iftekhar Hussain ihussain@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16985.html

CONTRIBUTORS
Adrian Farrel adrian@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16995.html
Daniel King daniel@olddog.co.uk http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17041.html
Xian Zhang zhang.xian@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17002.html
Cyril Margaria cmargaria@juniper.net http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17062.html
Qilei Wang wang.qilei@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16991.html
Malcolm Betts malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17063.html
Sergio Belotti sergio.belotti@alcatel-lucent.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16987.html
Yao Li wsliguotou@hotmail.com
Fei Zhang zhangfei7@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17075.html
Lei Wang wang.lei@bupt.edu.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17079.html
Guoying Zhang zhangguoying@ritt.cn http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17072.html
Takehiro Tsuritani tsuri@kddilabs.jp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16986.html
Lei Liu leiliu@ucdavis.edu http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16990.html
Eve Varma eve.varma@alcatel-lucent.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16989.html
Young Lee ylee@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17061.html
Jianrui Han hanjianrui@huawei.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17068.html
Sharfuddin Syed ssyed@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17067.html
Rajan Rao rrao@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17065.html
Marco Sosa msosa@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17066.html
Biao Lu blu@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17069.html
Abinder Dhillon adhillon@infinera.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17078.html
Felipe Jimenez Arribas felipe.jimenezarribas@telefonica.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17078.html
Andrew G.  Malis agmalis@gmail.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg17060.html
Huub van Helvoort huubatwork@gmail.com http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/current/msg16982.html