Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents

Dieter Beller <> Tue, 09 October 2012 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A86921F86CB for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.791
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SGL1vyEbJjkM for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0DBC21F86C9 for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 14:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q99LdtMq013447 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:39:55 +0200
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:39:54 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 23:39:40 +0200
From: Dieter Beller <>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lou Berger <>, CCAMP <>, Deborah Brungard <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-SubSwitch: [CCAMP]; [CCAMP]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------040606050209050903030209"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:40:02 -0000

Hi Deborah, Lou, all,

my answers in short:

a. no
b. no for all
c. Experimental for all

Please find some reasoning in-line below.


On 02.10.2012 16:30, Lou Berger wrote:

The WG has several WSON-related drafts including:
   1. draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
   2. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
   3. draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
   4. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf 	
   5. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

These drafts are currently identified as being on the Standards
Track.  The WG typically requests Standards Track publication of
documents that fill/fix a clear protocol function and/or have
strong WG support. Given the scope of this work as well as the
time the drafts have been active in the WG, we'd like to solicit
the WG's input on the publication track to be requested.

Once the WG reaches consensus on these drafts (as indicated by a
*future* WG last call), Standards Track publication can be
requested or these drafts could also be published via a
non-Standards Track, see section 4.2 of RFC2026 for all options.

Please let us know (preferably by responding on the WG list) if you:

a. Support targeting all of these documents for Standards Track
no - the major reason is that optical transponders from different vendors are typically
not interoperable today. As long as data plane interoperability does not exist, Standards
Track does IMHO not really make sense for the WSON documents in question.
b. If no, support targeting some of these documents for Standards
   Track publication?
  [1, yes/no
   2, yes/no
   3, yes/no
   4, yes/no
   5, yes/no]
no for all.
c. If no to any of the above, which status do you think appropriate?
  [Experimental or Informational]
Experimental status for all

Looking at the guidelines in" rel="nofollow">
guideline 4 is probably the most relevant one for these documents:

Guideline 4:

If the IETF may publish something based on this on the standards track once we know
how well this one works, it's Experimental. This is the typical case of not being able
to decide which protocol is "better" before we have experience of dealing with them from
a stable specification.

d. Finally, we are most interested in hearing from anyone who has,
   or is planning an implementation based on the WG drafts.  We
   understand that some may not want this information published,
   so please let any of the chairs and/or ADs know (Lou,
   Deborah, Adrian or Stewart), and they will publish the
   information without any personal or company identification.

Keep in mind that this mail is *not* starting a WG last call on
any of the documents identified above.  We'd like input on
intended publication status prior to any last call discussion.

Lou and Deborah
CCAMP mailing list" rel="nofollow">



Lorenzstrasse 10
70435 Stuttgart, Germany
T: +49 711 821 43125
M: +49 175 7266874

Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG
Domicile of the Company: Stuttgart · Local Court Stuttgart HRB 4026
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Michael Oppenhoff
Board of Management: Wilhelm Dresselhaus (Chairman) · Hans-Jörg Daub ·
Dr. Rainer Fechner · Andreas Gehe