Re: Poll for WG Adoption of Two WSON documents

[Giovanni Martinelli <giomarti@cisco.com>]

Hi,

yes support both

I have also few comments on Framework WSON

-  Section 3.3.1
How about using a more generic OXC model? Or may be having a two 
pictures, one with the current ROADM and one with an OXC (degree > 2)?  
For sure the simple ROADM it's the easier to understand but looks to me 
too specific.


The text: "As the degree of the ROADM increases beyond two it can have 
properties of both a switch(OXC)and a multiplexer"
To me looks like the figure 1 has already multiplexing capability 
correct? For example a wavelength entering in what you call an add port 
is multiplexed on a *line* (keeping same terminology of the document) port.

A simple questions on the switching matrix: looks like add/drop ports 
and *line* ports are considered the same in the matrix, correct?

- Section 4.1
About time frame classification: Dynamic, pseudo-static and static. 
While the text explains why an RWA would appreciate some temporal 
information a classification like  "relatively short" or "moderately 
long"  are a bit difficult to understand to me, Long or short are 
compared to what?.

- Section 6 Security
Does it worth a reference to 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-fang-mpls-gmpls-security-framework-01.txt?

- A small ed note: in reference section the [G.994.1] is within both 
normative and informative sub-sections...

Cheers
G






BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A, ATTLABS wrote:
> CCAMP,
>  
> From Philadelphia, we had good support for adoption of two of the WSON 
> documents as CCAMP working group documents:
>  
> - Framework for WSON
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wavelength-switched-03.txt
>  
> - Lambda Labels
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-lambda-labels-02.txt
>  
> Please express your opinions (authors, we welcome your opinion also).
>  
> Thanks,
> Adrian and Deborah