Re: [CCAMP] A general question on the WSON Framework draft

[Young Lee <ylee at huawei.com>]

Hi Lou, 

Thanks for your comments. Please see in-line for my response. 

In a nutshell, what the authors' intention of the WSON Framework was to stay
in the basic RWA issues (including Wavelength Converters and OXC); 

Having said that, any multi-signal related issues (we refer to this as
signal compatibility and processing constraints) that encompass Regenerators
and OEO switches is addressed in a separate document we just updated. 

Impairment has been addressed separately as you know. 

Perhaps, Greg can elaborate more from his perspective.

Regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger at labn.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 5:03 PM
To: draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework at tools.ietf.org
Cc: CCAMP WG
Subject: A general question on the WSON Framework draft

Authors, (WG)

	I have a pretty basic question on the WSON framework document:  What
is
the scope of the optical networks covered by this framework?

I think the document should be very clear on this.

Keep in mind that a framework (or even protocol) may allow for, i.e.,
not preclude, functions and aspects of an architecture or solution
without fully defining them.

To elaborate on my question:

A) It's clear that some portions of optical networks are in scope, such
as: "wavelength division multiplexed links, tunable laser transmitters,
reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers (ROADM) and wavelength
converters". But it is unclear if other portions are in or out; in
particular regenerators, OEO switches and, to some degree, OXCs.  All
are mentioned in the document, but the document is a bit vague on
whether they are part of the framework or not.  So what's included and
what's excluded?

YOUNG>> WSON RWA Framework includes wavelength division multiplexed links,
tunable laser transmitters, reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers
(ROADM) and wavelength converters and OXC. 

Regenerators and OEO switches are addressed in the context of signal
compatibility in a separate document. 

My personal opinion is that the framework should allow for all aspects
of today's optical networks, but need not define support for each (e.g.,
impairment based RWA).

YOUNG>> I agree. The concern we have had was the document gets larger and
larger to the point that it is hard to read and edit. In the framework, we
added the document relationship across RWA, Impairment and Signal
Compatibility so that these are all included in the larger WSON scope than
the document is addressing. 


B) Are multiple signal types included or not?

YOUNG>> No. 

The document seems to say that they are not, but then there is section
3.2.2.  It seems to me that it really doesn't take much to allow for
support of multiple signal types in this document.  Given that multiple
signal types are a reality in today's optical networks, I personally
think they belong in the framework.

YOUNG>> We thought we asked the WG chairs in Stockholm meeting. What we
thought we heard was a suggestion to separate "signal issues" from the basic
RWA issues. 

I have a bunch of more minor comments on the document, but will hold
these until the above is closed.

Much thanks,
Lou