Re: [Teas] [Pce] Initial version for liaison text: New Liaison Statement, "Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces"

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniele,

I am sorry, but:
- the received document is not clear to me and deserves clarification to be properly commented;
- I am strongly surprised by the deep change with respect to the previous version of the response shared before;
- the proposed response does not match the scope of the liaised document; e.g., quoting section 3.1: "the reference point Db (see Figure 2), can use underlying technology based on IEEE 802.3 Ethernet [2] or ITU-T  G.959.1  OTN", then why do we point to I-Ds related to WDM interfaces?

As a result, I am very confused between the liaison and the proposed response...

Cheers,

Julien

Nov. 10, 2015 - [e-mail]:

Hi CCAMP, TEAS and PCE,

 

Please find below a slightly revised text for the reply to the BBF liaison. We took the commitment to send this by mid of this week, please let us know if you have any concern with the text.

 

“The TEAS, PCE and CCAMP working groups would like to thank you for informing of us of the BBF effort on packet-optical networks and sending the document to us for review.

 

Reviewing the requirements proposed in the document, we noted the reference to IETF RFCs on GMPLS and PCE for satisfying the control requirements. As you progress your work, please inform us if you identify any gaps in order to satisfy these requirements.

 

For your information, IETF CCAMP is working on an update regarding the management and control of DWDM optical interface parameters and GMPLS protocols (please refer to draft-kdkgall-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk) which might be relevant to your project. This draft is still an individual contribution but it was indicated as “candidate for WG adoption” at the last meeting. The document has a set of companion documents defining extensions for SNMP (draft-galikunze-ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-mib), LMP (draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp) and YANG data models ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dharini-netmod-dwdm-if-yang-00" rel="nofollow"> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dharini-netmod-dwdm-if-yang-00" rel="nofollow">https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dharini-netmod-dwdm-if-yang-00 ). These documents are still in the individual contribution status and will be evaluated for WG adoption after the framework.

Feedback from the BBF would be highly appreciated and can be provided on the CCAMP mailing list without the need for a formal liaison.”

 

 

Thanks

Daniele & Fatai

 

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: domenica 1 novembre 2015 04:27
To: Zhenghaomian; '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]; TEAS WG
Subject: Re: [Teas] Initial version for liaison text //答复: CALL FOR VOLUNTEER - New Liaison Statement, "Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces"

 

Hi Haomian, all,

 

Thanks for starting putting together the reply. Please find some updated proposals from my side.

 

===========================

The working groups in IETF routing area would like to thank you for sending this liaison. We much appreciate BBF on the effort of packet over optical, and sending the document to IETF CCAMP, TEAS and PCE WGs for review. This project defines a set of control plane requirements that the Physically Separated Model should be satisfied. We have some questions and comments:

 

Questions:

•         It is not clear to us how the communication between the packet layer and the optical layer occurs. E.g. control channels, signaling and so on.

•         We would like to see some more details on the management aspects between the packet domain and the optical domain.

Comments:

•         When referring to PCE and related issues, e.g., in [R-26] and [R-27], it seems only stateless PCE (RFC4655) and corresponding PCEP (RFC5520) are included in the current version. As IETF PCE working group is investigating on stateful PCE, PCE Initiation and PCE as a Central Controller, which are planned to be published in the future, it is better to specify which kind of PCE is now referred by this documents. Moreover, RFC 5623, PCE-based inter-layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering, may be a good reference for this document.

•         In section 4.4 when talking about SDN, Openflow is mentioned as a standard protocol to interact between packet nodes and DWDM nodes. We would like to suggest add PCE Protocol (PCEP) as another example, as it is currently used in IETF. Besides, it is suggest to reference to RFC 3413 about SNMP, and RFC 4208 about GMPLS UNI.

•         In section 4.5, [R-36] is not clear whether to be applied to the north-bound of SDN controller, or between the packet NE and SDN controller. We prefer the latter one.

 

It seems to us the requirements proposed in the current document could be addressed by the referenced RFCs defined for GMPLS, so we would like to make sure if you have identified any gaps, which need an update on GMPLS/PCEP to satisfy these requirements. IETF CCAMP is discussing to define a framework for Management and Control of DWDM optical interface parameters and GMPLS protocols that need to be updated, which might be relevant to your project, but this work in CCAMP is still in individual drafts stage. We would like to receive your input.

============================

 

Thanks

Daniele

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian

> Sent: martedì 27 ottobre 2015 18:17

> To: '[e-mail]'; [e-mail]; TEAS WG

> Subject: [CCAMP] Initial version for liaison text //答复: CALL FOR

> VOLUNTEER - New Liaison Statement, "Achieving Packet Network

> Optimization using DWDM Interfaces"

>

> Hi, All,

>

> After reviewing the liaison and document from BBF, we would like to provide

> the following text as an initial version for response. Please help review, your

> comments are highly welcomed.

>

> =====================================for

> discussion================================================

> The working groups in IETF routing area would like to thank you for sending

> this liaison. We much appreciate BBF on the effort of packet over optical, and

> sending the document to IETF CCAMP, TEAS and PCE WGs for review. This

> project defines a set of control plane requirements that the Physically

> Separated Model should be satisfied. We are generally fine about the

> content, with some minor suggestions listed as follow for your reference:

>

> • When referring to PCE and related issues, e.g., in [R-26] and [R-27], it

> seems only stateless PCE (RFC4655) and corresponding PCEP (RFC5520) are

> included in the current version. As IETF PCE working group is investigating on

> stateful PCE, PCE Initiation and PCE as a Central Controller, which are planned

> to be published in the future, it is better to specify which kind of PCE is now

> referred by this documents. Moreover, RFC 5623, PCE-based inter-layer

> MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering, may be a good reference for this

> document.

> • In section 4.4 when talking about SDN, Openflow is mentioned as a

> standard protocol to interact between packet nodes and DWDM nodes. We

> would like to suggest add PCE Protocol (PCEP) as another example, as it is

> currently used in IETF. Besides, it is suggest to reference to RFC 3413 about

> SNMP, and RFC 4208 about GMPLS UNI.

> • In section 4.5, [R-36] is not clear whether to be applied to the north-bound

> of SDN controller, or between the packet NE and SDN controller. We prefer

> the latter one.

>

> It seems to us the requirements proposed in the current document could be

> addressed by the referenced RFCs defined for GMPLS, so we would like to

> make sure if you have identified any gaps, which need an update on GMPLS

> to satisfy these requirements. IETF CCAMP is discussing to define a

> framework for Management and Control of DWDM optical interface

> parameters and GMPLS protocols that need to be updated, which might be

> relevant to your project, but this work in CCAMP is still in individual drafts

> stage. We would like to receive your input.

> ==========================================================

> ========================================================

>

> Thanks.

>

> Best wishes,

> Haomian

>

> -----邮件原件-----

> 发件人: Zhenghaomian

> 发送时间: 2015年10月21日 11:11

> 收件人: Daniele Ceccarelli; Fatai Zhang

> 抄送: [e-mail]

> 主题: 答复: CALL FOR VOLUNTEER - New Liaison Statement, "Achieving

> Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces"

>

> Daniele, Fatai and All,

>

> I would like to volunteer for generating the response liaison, as the topic is

> highly related to my research work. I will review the document and share my

> comments early next week. Please also feel free to share your opinion,

> thanks.

>

> Best wishes,

> Haomian

>

> -----邮件原件-----

> 发件人: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Daniele Ceccarelli

> 发送时间: 2015年10月20日 23:46

> 收件人: CCAMP ([e-mail])

> 主题: [CCAMP] CALL FOR VOLUNTEER - New Liaison Statement, "Achieving

> Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces"

>

> WG,

>

> We received this liaison from BBF on Packet-Optical integration.

> I'm copying the links to liaison and attachment here for your convenience

> Liaison:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1432/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1432/" rel="nofollow">https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1432/

> Attachment: https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-optimization-using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-

https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-optimization-using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">> 10-16-broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-

https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-optimization-using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-1.pdf" rel="nofollow">> optimization-using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-1.pdf

>

> We'd really like 1 or 2 volunteers interested in the topic to draft an answer to

> the liaison before the meeting in Yokohama so to be able to discuss it on the

> list and reply during or immediately after the meeting.

>

> Please consider volunteering.

> Thanks

> Fatai & Daniele

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Liaison Statement Management Tool [mailto:[e-mail]]

> > Sent: venerdì 16 ottobre 2015 22:05

> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];

> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Daniele

> > Ceccarelli

> > Cc: Alvaro Retana; Deborah Brungard; David Sinicrope; Fatai Zhang;

> > Alia Atlas; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; The IETF Chair; Daniele Ceccarelli;

> > Lou Berger; Common Control and Measurement Plane Discussion List;

> > [e-mail]; Traffic Engineering Architecture and

> > Signaling Discussion List

> > Subject: New Liaison Statement, "Achieving Packet Network Optimization

> > using DWDM Interfaces"

> >

> > Title: Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces

> > Submission Date: 2015-10-16 URL of the IETF Web page:

> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1432/" rel="nofollow"> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1432/

> > Please reply by 2015-11-08

> > From:  (David Sinicrope <[e-mail]>)

> > To:  ([e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

> > [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],

> > [e-mail])

> > Cc:

> > Response Contacts: [e-mail] Technical Contacts:

> > Purpose: For comment

> >

> > Body: Dear IETF Routing Area and Working Group Leaders:

> >

> > As previously communicated, we have been working on a project entitled

> > “Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces” and are

> > referencing work being done by IETF CCAMP and TEAS in this area. We

> > are pleased to report that we have made significant progress towards

> > completion of our specifications. Specifically,

> >

> > o TR-319 Base, “Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM

> > Interfaces”, was published June 2015 o TR-319 Part A, “Achieving

> > Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces – Physically

> > Integrated Model”, was published June 2015

> >

> > WT-319 Part B, Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM

> > Interfaces – Physically Separated, Logically Separated, is undergoing

> > Straw Ballot (similar to IETF WG Last Call), and we are attaching it for your

> review and comment.

> >

> > Our ballot period closes on November 8, 2015. If it is at all

> > possible, we would appreciate and look forward to any input in time

> > for our ballot close. The next meeting of BBF occurs November 16,

> > 2015. A schedule of our future meetings appears below.

> >

> > We want to express our appreciation for your continued consideration

> > of this important topic.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> > Michael Fargano,

> > Broadband Forum Technical Committee Chair

> >

> > Date of Upcoming Broadband Forum Meetings DATES LOCATION

> November 16 –

> > 20, 2015 Puerto Vallarta, Mexico February 1 – 5, 2016 Asia Pac

> > (precise location TBD)

> >

> > Note: A list of upcoming meetings can also be found at

> > http://www.broadbandforum" rel="nofollow">http://www.broadbandforum.

> > org/meetings/upcomingmeetingsataglance.php

> >

> > Attachments:

> > § WT-319 Part B Straw Ballot Text (bbf2015.071.07)

> > Attachments:

> >

> >     Attachment

> >     https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-" rel="nofollow"> https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-

> > broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-optimization-

> > using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-1.pdf

> >

> >     Statement

> >     https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-" rel="nofollow"> https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2015-10-16-

> > broadband-forum-rtg-ccamp-teas-achieving-packet-network-optimization-

> > using-dwdm-interfaces-attachment-2.pdf

>

> _______________________________________________

> CCAMP mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

> _______________________________________________

> CCAMP mailing list

> [e-mail]

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce" rel="nofollow">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce