A Framework for the Control of Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSONs) with Impairments
RFC 6566

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-13 for -)
No email
send info
  == Missing Reference: 'Eppstein' is mentioned on line 1020, but not defined

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC5920' is mentioned on line 1138, but not defined

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-14 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Wassim Haddad on 13-Dec-2011 raised one
  editorial comment.  Please consider it:

  - In Security considerations section: s/maybe/may be/

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-13 for -)
No email
send info
I am left wondering why this document is being published in the IETF instead of elsewhere and then later referred to by a GMPLS document that will use this terminology and framework, but I can say that I do not have a clue about the technology and am therefore deferring to others to review the content of this document.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-01 for -)
No email
send info
Bert  Wijnen made the following comment (that I support) in his OPS-DIR review: 

As the document writeup states:

   This document is an informational framework with nothing to implement.
   There are a number of drafts being progressed that address various
   aspects of the framework.

So it would be those documents being progressed that would have to include any discussion about operational or manageability aspects of the various solutions.

At the other hand, it might have been useful if this document would have touched upon some operational/manageability aspects for each of the possible solutions. It seems clear that there are different characteristics depending on which solution is chosen. Specifically the talk about "black links" makes me worried that solutions can become complex and less interoperable.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-13 for -)
No email
send info
s6/s8: Need add a reference to [RFC5920].