Skip to main content

Framework for GMPLS and Path Computation Element (PCE) Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs)
draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-12

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2011-02-23
12 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-02-22
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-02-22
12 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-02-22
12 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-02-22
12 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-02-22
12 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-02-22
12 Amy Vezza Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-02-22
12 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text changed
2011-02-22
12 Adrian Farrel Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-02-22
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-02-22
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-02-17
12 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-02-17
12 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation.
2011-02-17
12 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-17
12 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2 - it is really disputable that CLI is a 'management protocol' on the same scale as Netconf, SNMP or CORBA. I …
[Ballot comment]
Section 4.2 - it is really disputable that CLI is a 'management protocol' on the same scale as Netconf, SNMP or CORBA. I would rather suggest that it is mentioned separately as a 'method to access configuration and status information'.
2011-02-17
12 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-17
12 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-17
12 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-16
12 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-16
12 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-15
12 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann
  on 7-Feb-2011.  The comments cab be found at:

    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/ …
[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann
  on 7-Feb-2011.  The comments cab be found at:

    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-10-mccann.txt
2011-02-15
12 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-15
12 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-13
12 Adrian Farrel State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup.
2011-02-08
12 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2011-02-08
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot has been issued
2011-02-08
12 Adrian Farrel Created "Approve" ballot
2011-02-08
12 Adrian Farrel Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-17
2011-02-08
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-12.txt
2011-02-07
12 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-02-07
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-11.txt
2011-02-01
12 Adrian Farrel
State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
Need a new revision to address the ROuting Directorate review comments …
State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
Need a new revision to address the ROuting Directorate review comments (copy sent to CCAMP list)
2011-02-01
12 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2011-01-28
12 Amanda Baber We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.
2011-01-25
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2011-01-25
12 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2011-01-18
12 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2011-01-18
12 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Common Control and Measurement
Plane WG (ccamp) to consider the following document:
- 'Framework for GMPLS and PCE Control of Wavelength Switched Optical
  Networks (WSON)'
  as an 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 2011-02-01. 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.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework/
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Last Call was requested
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Last Call text changed
2011-01-18
12 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2011-01-18
12 (System) Last call text was added
2011-01-18
12 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Last Call text changed
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-18
12 Adrian Farrel State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2011-01-12
12 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2011-01-12
12 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Lou Berger is the Document Shepherd.

He has reviewed the document and believes it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document has been reviewed by WG members who are active in
this area. The PCE WG was also notified about the WG LC and no
comments were received.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns or additional review needed.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues 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. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns or issues. No IPR found in the datatracker.

(1.e) 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?

There is good consensus behind this document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. There is one instance of a missing reference which is really
due to a capitalization mismatch which can be corrected as part of
the publication process. No other reviews are required.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? 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
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

Split looks okay.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

No IANA implications.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

Yes, no automated checks needed.

(1.k) 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
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

This document provides a framework for applying Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) and the Path Computation Element
(PCE) architecture to the control of wavelength switched optical
networks (WSON). In particular, it examines Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (RWA) of optical paths.

This document focuses on topological elements and path selection
constraints that are common across different WSON environments,
and does not address optical impairments in any depth.


Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?

Nothing worth noting.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?

This document is an informational framework.
2011-01-12
12 Cindy Morgan Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested
2011-01-10
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-10.txt
2011-01-10
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-09.txt
2010-12-17
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-08.txt
2010-10-08
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-07.txt
2010-04-07
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-06.txt
2010-02-01
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-05.txt
2009-10-09
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-04.txt
2009-09-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-03.txt
2009-09-05
12 (System) Document has expired
2009-03-04
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-02.txt
2009-02-09
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-01.txt
2008-12-05
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-00.txt