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

"Ong, Lyndon" <> Tue, 16 October 2012 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042CB21F8679 for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.764
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n0PfUH59XQS2 for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202A821F864D for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419 []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id q9GFAB27015452; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:13 -0400
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 1819jdr49w-3 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:13 -0400
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:10 -0400
From: "Ong, Lyndon" <>
To: Dieter Beller <>, Lou Berger <>, CCAMP <>, Deborah Brungard <>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:08 -0400
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
Thread-Index: Ac2mZqrBkchwVayzRX+nRPC9TEgZCAD53wlg
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--53.147300-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_A0B4FC0A5EFBD44585414760DB4FD274FF8C8AEFMDWEXGMB02ciena_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-10-16_05:2012-10-16, 2012-10-16, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1210160143
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, 16 Oct 2012 15:10:39 -0000

Hi Deborah, Lou,

I think Dieter makes some good arguments for making the documents Experimental.
We could use more feedback on any implementation and deployment, what dataplane conditions are needed to make this work, impact (especially on routing traffic), etc.



From:<> [] On Behalf Of Dieter Beller
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 2:40 PM
To: Lou Berger; CCAMP; Deborah Brungard
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents

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
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<>


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