Skip to main content

Evaluation of Existing GMPLS Encoding against G.709v3 Optical Transport Networks (OTNs)
RFC 7096

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Stephen Farrell)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -12)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-10-23 for -12)
I have a question regarding this document. I am not making it a DISCUSS because (a) my availability to have a DISCUSSion this week and next is limited and (b) even if the answer to this question is the worst imaginable, I'm not convinced we should hold up publication to DISCUSS it:

What charter item for CCAMP does this document fulfill? I can't figure out what major output of the WG this document is intended to advance, and I don't even see a milestone for this item in the milestone list. Is this supposed to be input to some other document? Neither the intro nor the abstract make this obvious.

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-10-23 for -12)
Warren's secdir review seemed to have some useful editor comments.  Please consider them.

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-10-22 for -12)
I did have one comment, which you might consider along with any other feedback you receive during IESG evaluation.

In section 3.2.  Control Plane considerations

   What is shown in the example is that the TS granularity processing is
   a per layer issue: even if the ODU3 H-LSP is created with TS
   granularity client at 2.5Gbps, the ODU2 H-LSP must guarantee a
   1.25Gbps TS granularity client.  

I don't understand what "must guarantee a client" means here. Is that a term of art in optical networking? I'm guessing this is saying something like "must guarantee support for a client", but I'm guessing.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-10-22 for -12)
Figure 7 addresses the scenario in which the restoration of the ODU2

I think you mean  Figure 10

ISCD + IACD need expansion