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

[Julien Meuric]

  
  
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 -
  daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com:


  
  
  
  
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
  ). 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:teas-boun...@ietf.org]
  On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
  Sent: domenica 1 novembre 2015 04:27
  To: Zhenghaomian; 'cc...@ietf.org';
  pce@ietf.org; 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
speci

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

[Daniele Ceccarelli]

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 ). 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:teas-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: domenica 1 novembre 2015 04:27
To: Zhenghaomian; 'cc...@ietf.org'; pce@ietf.org; 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:ccamp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian

> Sent: martedì 27 ottobre 2015 18:17

> To: 'cc...@ietf.org'; pce@ietf.org; 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 ar