Hi Young.
Thank you for the update. I think I can live with the "Re-optimize"
phrase as it is.
Just a few remaining nits:
- still some double spacing
- s/PCE-based Architecture/PCE-based architecture/
- s/network.The PCE/network. The PCE/
- s/constraining the path to have/constraining the paths to have/ [my
mistake!]
It looks like version 13 will be ready to move forward.
Thanks
Julien
Jul. 31, 2014 - Leeyoung:
Hi Julien,
All your comments have been reflected in the revision except:
Section 3.4.
---
- The phrase "b. Re-optimize wavelength(s)" reads odd, what about rephrasing into
"b. Re-consider wavelength(s) allocation"?
I think Re-optimize is meant to include wavelength(s) re-allocation as well as
path changes. I would leave the phrase as is.
Attached are the idnits report and the working version (v.13). Let me know if
this version satisfies you and if I should publish this.
Thanks,
Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:10 AM
Hi Young and WSON co-authors.
As part of the shepherding of the WSON requirement draft, please find below
some comments to address before sending to the IESG.
Regards,
Julien
----------
Globally, the way the top-level section titles are indented creates troubles to
IETF tools, including idnits. Please remove spacing before these section
header, from 1. to 8.
---
Along the document, unnecessary double spacing happens multiple times,
especially after periods. Please clean them up.
---------
In the header, could you compact the author list by removing blank lines?
---------
s/described in RFC-2119 0./described in [RFC2119]./
---------
Abstract
---
It is better when the abstract appears on the 1st page: please move it before
"Status of this Memo".
---
s/for Optical impairments/for optical impairments/
---------
Section 1.
---
- s/PCE based Architecture/PCE-based architecture/
- s/Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks/Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)-controlled
networks/
- s/Optical Switching Element/optical switching element/
- s/communications Protocol/communication Protocol/
- s/WDM based optical networks/WDM-based optical networks/
- A paragraph break right before "A transparent optical network" would be
appreciated.
- s/its route from/its path from/
- s/due to their relatively high cost/for cost reasons/
- s/all lightpath computation/all lightpath computations/
- s/for Optical impairments/for optical impairments/
---------
Section 2.
---
- s/in 0./in Figure 1./
- At the end of Figure 1's title, I would remove the period, to be consistent
with Figure 2.
- The DWA case is actually a sub-case of "separate processes", replacing
(c) by (b') would to the trick.
- To glue the text to the figure, 1./2./3. before paragraphs should be replaced
by (a)/(b)/(b').
- NEW last sentence in (b'): "This alternative is a particular case of
R+WA, it should be covered by GMPLS PCEP extensions and does not present
new WSON-specific requirements" [beware of the hyphen]
- s/PCE based implementation/PCE-based implementation/
---------
Section 3.1.
---
- Starting with "1." leads to look for "2.", which does not exist: it would ease reading to drop
"1." and start directly with "A PCEP request..."
- I would remove the "or" at the end of the line (i).
- Trailing text of (i) and (ii) should be aligned.
---------
Section 3.2.
---
- Trailing text of (i) and (ii) should be aligned.
- s/in R+WA or DWA/in R+WA or R+DWA/
- s/assigned to the route/assigned to the path/
- s/Label Sets/label set/
- s/no route/no path/
---------
Section 3.3.
---
- Before the 2 listed requirements, I suggest to add this NEW text:
"Sending simultaneous path requests for "routing only" computation is supported by
PCEP specification [RFC 5440]. To remain consistent, the following requirements are added."
- s/the route and wavelength assigned to the route for each/the path and the
assigned wavelength for each/
---------
Section 3.4.
---
- The phrase "b. Re-optimize wavelength(s)" reads odd, what about rephrasing into
"b. Re-consider wavelength(s) allocation"?
- s/both wavelength and the path/both the wavelength and the path/
- s/no route/no path/
- s/both route and wavelength/both path and wavelength/
---------
Section 3.5.
---
- s/assigned wavelenght/assigned wavelength/
- s/Explicit Label or Label Sets/explicit label or label set/
- s/is NOT required/is not required/
- The "3.6." string and paragraph break has scrambled the last lines of the
section
- s/or an policy based/or a policy-based/
---------
Section 3.6.
---
- Fix the section header (as mentioned above)
- s/for (E.g., random assignment, descending order, ascending order, etc.)/for,
e.g., random assignment, descending order, ascending order, etc./
---
OLD:
" 2. A request for 2 or more paths (e.g., 1+1 link disjoint paths) MUST
be able to specify an option constraining the path to have the
same wavelength(s) assigned.
Note that this is extremely useful in the case of protection with
single transponder."
NEW:
"2. A request for two or more paths MUST be able to include an option constraining
the path to have the same wavelength(s) assigned. This is useful in the case of
protection with single transponder (e.g., 1+1 link-disjoint paths)."
---
- s/contiguous wavelength/continuous wavelength/
- s/to constrain the wavelength continuity/to specify the precedence of
wavelength continuity/
---------
Section 3.7.
---
- s/or any given links/or on any given links/
---------
Section 4.5.
---
Not clear if it is a misplaced requirement or a nice-to-have idea. I suggest
replacing the sentence by the following NEW text:
"If PCE discovery mechanisms ([RFC5089] and [RFC5088]) were to be extended for
technology-specific capabilities, advertising WSON RWA path computation capability should
be considered."
---------
Section 8.
---
- RFCs 3471, 3473 and 6566 are note mentioned in the body of the I-D and should
be dropped.
- RFC 4003 is missing and should be added to informative documents.
- RFC 4657 and PCEP-MIB should be moved from normative to informative (no need
to read them to understand your I-D).
----THE END-----
Apr. 28, 2014 - Leeyoung:
Hi Julien,
This update reflects all the comments received from Cyril and Ramon as part of
the WG LC.
Cyril, please let the WG know if this update satisfies your comment.
Best Regards,
Young
-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
[email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:29 AM
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : PCEP Requirements for WSON Routing and Wavelength
Assignment
Authors : Young Lee
Greg Bernstein
Jonas Martensson
Tomonori Takeda
Takehiro Tsuritani
Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Filename : draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-12.txt
Pages : 14
Date : 2014-04-28
Abstract:
This memo provides application-specific requirements for the Path
Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for the support of
Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON). Lightpath provisioning
in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) process.
From a path computation perspective, wavelength assignment is the
process of determining which wavelength can be used on each hop of a
path and forms an additional routing constraint to optical light
path computation. Requirements for Optical impairments will be
addressed in a separate document.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelengt
h/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-12
A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelengt
h-12
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
