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

[Greg Bernstein <[e-mail]>]

Hi CCAMPer's  I'd like to remind folks that carriers, vendors, and 
industry in general have benefited from control plane standards even in 
the case where data plane compatibility is rare or non-existent.
The WSON drafts formalized and added key extensions (connectivity 
matrix) of existing implemented standards track wavelength switching 
documents, i.e., the orginal GMPLS documents were aimed at WSON.  In 
addition all these WSON documents adhere to and reinforce ITU-T 
recommendations.

Also remember that these drafts standardize two key missing pieces to 
the optical control plane: (i) modeling of asymmetric switches (per 
ITU-T recomendation), and (ii) wavelength accounting for RWA.  I would 
think that carriers and vendors would not want to reinvent the wheel on 
these fundamental abilities.

Best Regards
Greg


On 10/9/2012 2:39 PM, Dieter Beller wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dieter
>
> On 02.10.2012 16:30, Lou Berger wrote:
>> CCAMP,
>>
>> 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
>>     publication?
>>    [yes/no]
> 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 
> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
> -- 
>
> *DIETER BELLER*
> ALCATEL-LUCENT DEUTSCHLAND AG
> PROJECT MANAGER ASON/GMPLS CONTROL PLANE
> NETWORKS GROUP, OPTICS DIVISION
> TERRESTRIAL OPTICS UNIT
>
> Lorenzstrasse 10
> 70435 Stuttgart, Germany
> T: [phone]
> M: [phone]
> *[e-mail]
>
> *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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp


-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]