Skip to main content

Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of G.709 Optical Transport Networks


No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes (2013-09-04 for -14) Unknown
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

Section 4.1

Section 5.6
s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-12 for -14) Unknown
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?
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-06 for -14) Unknown
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.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown

Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -14) Unknown