Hi Julien, Thanks for your quick review on the update. I made all the changes you indicated below as well as the double spacing for a few places.
I will publish in a minute v.13. Thanks, Young -----Original Message----- From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 4:02 AM To: Leeyoung; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: FW: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-12.txt 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 > R+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-waveleng >> t >> 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-waveleng >> t >> 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
