Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-24

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    ccamp mailing list <ccamp@ietf.org>,
    ccamp chair <ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength Switched Optical Networks' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-24.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Routing and Wavelength Assignment Information Model for Wavelength
   Switched Optical Networks'
  (draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info-24.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the Common Control and Measurement Plane
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Alia Atlas.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-info/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   This document provides a model of information needed by the routing
   and wavelength assignment (RWA) process in wavelength switched
   optical networks (WSONs).  The purpose of the information described
   in this model is to facilitate constrained lightpath computation in
   WSONs. This model takes into account compatibility constraints
   between WSON signal attributes and network elements but does not
   include constraints due to optical impairments. Aspects of this
   information that may be of use to other technologies utilizing a
   GMPLS control plane are discussed.
 
Working Group Summary

   This topic been discussed in the WG for a very long time, perhaps 6
   years.  Support for the work has been tepid, but there are multiple
   sets of contributors who would like to see the work result in proposed
   standards. 
 
Document Quality

   This document provides background and an approach to extending
   exiting RFCs for which there are implementations, but does not
   Itself define any protocol mechanisms.  The existing RFCs include
   RFC3471, RFC3473, RFC4202, RFC4203.  This work is based on
   RFC6163.

Personnel

   Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd
   Adrian Farrel is the Responsible Area Director

RFC Editor Note