idnits 2.17.1 draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-04.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([ITU.G694.1]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (June 30, 2017) is 2489 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'RFC4902' is mentioned on line 84, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'ITU.G959.1' is mentioned on line 178, but not defined == Missing Reference: 'G.694.1' is mentioned on line 187, but not defined == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk' is defined on line 453, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ITU.G698.2' is defined on line 464, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ITU.G709' is defined on line 470, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ITU.G872' is defined on line 475, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'ITU.G874.1' is defined on line 480, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4054' is defined on line 486, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 508, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3410' is defined on line 512, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 518, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-03 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk (ref. 'I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk') -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G694.1' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G698.2' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G709' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G872' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ITU.G874.1' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4054 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 14 warnings (==), 7 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force D. Hiremagalur, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft G. Grammel, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track Juniper 5 Expires: January 1, 2018 G. Galimberti, Ed. 6 Cisco 7 R. Kunze 8 Deutsche Telekom 9 D. Beller 10 Nokia 11 June 30, 2017 13 Extension to the Link Management Protocol (LMP/DWDM -rfc4209) for Dense 14 Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Optical Line Systems to manage 15 the application code of optical interface parameters in DWDM application 16 draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-04 18 Abstract 20 This memo defines extensions to LMP(rfc4209) for managing Optical 21 parameters associated with Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) 22 systems in accordance with the Interface Application Identifier 23 approach defined in ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1.[ITU.G694.1] and its 24 extensions. 26 Copyright Notice 28 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 29 document authors. All rights reserved. 31 Status of This Memo 33 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 34 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 36 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 37 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 38 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 39 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 41 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 42 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 43 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 44 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 46 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 1, 2018. 48 Copyright Notice 50 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 51 document authors. All rights reserved. 53 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 54 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 55 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 56 publication of this document. Please review these documents 57 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 58 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 59 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 60 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 61 described in the Simplified BSD License. 63 Table of Contents 65 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 66 2. DWDM line system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 3. Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 5. General Parameters - OCh_General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 6. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier . . . . . . 6 71 7. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 8. OCh_Rs - receive parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 73 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 75 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 76 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 77 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 78 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 81 1. Introduction 83 This extension addresses the use cases described by "draft-ietf- 84 ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-00". LMP [RFC4902] provides link property 85 correlation capabilities that can be used between a transceiver 86 device and an Optical Line System (OLS) device. Link property 87 correlation is a procedure by which, intrinsic parameters and 88 capabilities are exchanged between two ends of a link. Link property 89 correlation as defined in RFC3591 allows either end of the link to 90 supervise the received signal and operate within a commonly 91 understood parameter window. Here the term 'link' refers in 92 particular to the attachment link between OXC and OLS (see Figure 1). 93 The relevant interface parameters are in line with "draft-galikunze- 94 ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-mib-01" and "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang-00". 96 2. DWDM line system 98 Figure 1 shows a set of reference points (Rs and Ss), for a single- 99 channel connection between transmitter (Tx) and receiver (Rx) 100 devices. Here the DWDM network elements in between those devices 101 include an Optical Multiplexer (OM) and an Optical Demultiplexer 102 (OD). In addition it may include one or more Optical Amplifiers (OA) 103 and one or more Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers (OADM). 105 +-------------------------------------------------+ 106 Ss | DWDM Network Elements | Rs 107 +--+ | | | \ / | | | +--+ 108 Tx L1--|->| \ +------+ +------+ / |--|-->Rx L1 109 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+ 110 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+ 111 Tx L2--|->| OM |-->|------|->|ROADM |--|------|->| OD |--|-->Rx L2 112 +---+ | | | | | | | | | | | | +--+ 113 +---+ | | | | | +------+ | | | | | +--+ 114 Tx L3--|->| / | DWDM | | ^ | DWDM | \ |--|-->Rx L3 115 +---+ | | / | Link +----|--|----+ Link | \ | | +--+ 116 +-----------+ | | +----------+ 117 +--+ +--+ 118 | | 119 Rs v | Ss 120 +-----+ +-----+ 121 |RxLx | |TxLx | 122 +-----+ +-----+ 124 Ss = Sender reference point at the DWDM network element 125 tributary output 126 Rs = Receiver reference point at the DWDM network element 127 tributary input 128 Lx = Lambda x 129 OM = Optical Mux 130 OD = Optical Demux 131 ROADM = Reconfigurable Optical Add Drop Mux 133 from Fig. 5.1/G.698.2 135 Figure 1: Linear Single Channel approach 137 Figure 2 Extended LMP Model ( from [RFC4209] ) 139 +------+ Ss +------+ +------+ Rs +------+ 140 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 141 | OXC1 | ----- | OLS1 | ===== | OLS2 | ----- | OXC2 | 142 | | ----- | | | | ----- | | 143 +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ 144 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 145 | | | | | | 146 | +-----LMP-----+ +-----LMP-----+ | 147 | | 148 +----------------------LMP-----------------------+ 150 OXC : is an entity that contains transponders 151 OLS : generic optical system, it can be - 152 Optical Mux, Optical Demux, Optical Add 153 Drop Mux, Amplifier etc. 154 OLS to OLS : represents the Optical Multiplex section 155 156 Rs/Ss : reference points in between the OXC and the OLS 158 Figure 2: Extended LMP Model 160 3. Use Cases 162 The use cases are described in draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk 164 4. Extensions to LMP-WDM Protocol 166 This document defines extensions to [RFC4209] to allow a set of 167 characteristic parameters, to be exchanged between a router or 168 optical switch and the optical line system to which it is attached. 169 In particular, this document defines additional Data Link sub-objects 170 to be carried in the LinkSummary message defined in [RFC4204] and 171 [RFC6205]. The OXC and OLS systems may be managed by different 172 Network management systems and hence may not know the capability and 173 status of their peer. These messages and their usage are defined in 174 subsequent sections of this document. 176 The following new messages are defined for the WDM extension for 177 ITU-T G.698.2 [ITU.G698.2]/ITU-T G.698.1 [ITU.G698.1]/ 178 ITU-T G.959.1 [ITU.G959.1] 179 - OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA) 180 - OCh_ApplicationIdentier (sub-object Type = TBA) 181 - OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA) 182 - OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA) 184 5. General Parameters - OCh_General 186 These are a set of general parameters as described in [G698.2] and 187 [G.694.1]. Please refer to the "draft-galikunze-ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp- 188 mib-01" and "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang-00" for more details 189 about these parameters and the [RFC6205] for the wavelength 190 definition. 192 The general parameters are 193 1. Central Frequency - (Tera Hz) 4 bytes (see RFC6205 sec.3.2) 194 2. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported 195 3. Single-channel Application Identifier in use 196 4. Application Identifier Type in use 197 5. Application Identifier in use 199 Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 200 TBA) is as follows: 202 0 1 2 3 203 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 204 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 205 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 206 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 207 | Central Frequency | 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Number of Application | | 210 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) | 211 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 212 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length | 213 | Application | in use | | 214 | Identifier | | | 215 | Number in use | | | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use | 218 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 219 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use | 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use | 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 223 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY 225 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD 227 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v) 229 0 1 2 3 230 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 231 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 232 | Single-channel Application Code | 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 234 | Single-channel Application Code | 235 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 236 | Single-channel Application Code | 237 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 239 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY 241 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the 242 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the 243 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of 244 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the 245 vendor whose implementation generated the Application 246 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are 247 unspecified. 249 0 1 2 3 250 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 251 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 252 | OUI | 253 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 254 | OUI cont. | Vendor value | 255 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 256 | Vendor Value | 257 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 259 Figure 3: OCh_General 261 6. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier 263 This message is to exchange the application identifiers supported as 264 described in [G698.2]. There can be more than one Application 265 Identifier supported by the transmitter/receiver in the OXC. The 266 number of application identifiers supported is exchanged in the 267 "OCh_General" message. (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] and G.874.1 268 ) 269 The parameters are 270 1. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported 272 2. Single-channel application identifier Number 273 uniquely identifiers this entry - 8 bits 275 3. Application Indentifier Type (A.I.) (STANDARD/PROPRIETARY) 277 4. Single-channel application identifier -- 96 bits 278 (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] 280 - this parameter can have 281 multiple instances as the transceiver can support multiple 282 application identifiers. 284 Figure 4: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = 285 TBA) is as follows: 287 0 1 2 3 288 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 289 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 290 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 291 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 292 | Number of Application | | 293 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) | 294 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 295 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length | 296 | Application | | | 297 | Identifier | | | 298 | Number | | | 299 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 300 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 301 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 302 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 303 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 304 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 305 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 306 // .... // 307 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 308 | Single-channel| | A.I. length | 309 | Application | A.I. Type | | 310 | Identifier | | | 311 | Number | | | 312 | | | | 313 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 314 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 315 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 316 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 317 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 318 | Single-channel Application Identifier | 319 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 321 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY 323 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD 324 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v) 326 0 1 2 3 327 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 328 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 329 | Single-channel Application Code | 330 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 331 | Single-channel Application Code | 332 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 333 | Single-channel Application Code | 334 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 336 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY 338 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the 339 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the 340 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of 341 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the 342 vendor whose implementation generated the Application 343 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are 344 unspecified. 346 0 1 2 3 347 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 348 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 349 | OUI | 350 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 351 | OUI cont. | Vendor value | 352 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 353 | Vendor Value | 354 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 356 Figure 4: OCh_ApplicationIdentifier 358 7. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters 360 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Source(Ss reference points). 361 Please refer to "draft-galikunze-ccamp-dwdm-if-snmp-mib-01" for more 362 details about these parameters. 364 1. Output power 366 Figure 5: The format of the OCh sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA) 367 is as follows: 369 0 1 2 3 370 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 371 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 372 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 373 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 374 | Output Power | 375 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 377 Figure 5: OCh_Ss transmit parameters 379 8. OCh_Rs - receive parameters 381 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Sink (Rs reference points). 383 1. Current Input Power - (0.1dbm) 4bytes 385 Figure 6: The format of the OCh receive sub-object (Type = TBA, 386 Length = TBA) is as follows: 388 The format of the OCh receive/OLS Sink sub-object (Type = TBA, 389 Length = TBA) is as follows: 391 0 1 2 3 392 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 393 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 394 | Type | Length | (Reserved) | 395 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 396 | Current Input Power | 397 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 399 Figure 6: OCh_Rs receive parameters 401 9. Security Considerations 403 LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204]. This 404 document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing 405 LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209]. This 406 document does not introduce new security considerations. 408 10. IANA Considerations 410 LMP defines the following name spaces and 411 the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces: 413 - LMP Message Type 414 - LMP Object Class 415 - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class 416 - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class 417 This memo introduces the following new assignments: 419 LMP Sub-Object Class names: 421 under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in ) 422 - OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA) 423 - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier (sub-object Type = TBA) 424 - OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA) 425 - OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA) 427 11. Contributors 429 Arnold Mattheus 430 Deutsche Telekom 431 Darmstadt 432 Germany 433 email a.mattheus@telekom.de 435 John E. Drake 436 Juniper 437 1194 N Mathilda Avenue 438 HW-US,Pennsylvania 439 USA 440 jdrake@juniper.net 442 Zafar Ali 443 Cisco 444 3000 Innovation Drive 445 KANATA 446 ONTARIO K2K 3E8 447 zali@cisco.com 449 12. References 451 12.1. Normative References 453 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk] 454 Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., and G. Galimberti, "A 455 framework for Management and Control of DWDM optical 456 interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl- 457 fwk-03 (work in progress), October 2016. 459 [ITU.G694.1] 460 International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids 461 for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"", 462 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012. 464 [ITU.G698.2] 465 International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified 466 multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing 467 applications with single channel optical interfaces", 468 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009. 470 [ITU.G709] 471 International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the 472 Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation 473 G.709, February 2012. 475 [ITU.G872] 476 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of 477 optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872, 478 October 2012. 480 [ITU.G874.1] 481 International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport 482 network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information 483 model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation 484 G.874.1, October 2012. 486 [RFC4054] Strand, J., Ed. and A. Chiu, Ed., "Impairments and Other 487 Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054, 488 DOI 10.17487/RFC4054, May 2005, 489 . 491 [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204, 492 DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005, 493 . 495 [RFC4209] Fredette, A., Ed. and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management 496 Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing 497 (DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209, 498 DOI 10.17487/RFC4209, October 2005, 499 . 501 [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for 502 Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", 503 RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011, 504 . 506 12.2. Informative References 508 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 509 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999, 510 . 512 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, 513 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet- 514 Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410, 515 DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002, 516 . 518 [RFC4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of 519 MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181, 520 September 2005, . 522 Authors' Addresses 524 Dharini Hiremagalur (editor) 525 Juniper 526 1194 N Mathilda Avenue 527 Sunnyvale - 94089 California 528 USA 530 Phone: +1408 531 Email: dharinih@juniper.net 533 Gert Grammel (editor) 534 Juniper 535 Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15 536 80807 Muenchen 537 Germany 539 Phone: +49 1725186386 540 Email: ggrammel@juniper.net 542 Gabriele Galimberti (editor) 543 Cisco 544 Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c 545 20871 - Vimercate 546 Italy 548 Phone: +390392091462 549 Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com 551 Ruediger Kunze 552 Deutsche Telekom 553 Dddd, xx 554 Berlin 555 Germany 557 Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx 558 Email: RKunze@telekom.de 559 Dieter Beller 560 Nokia 561 Lorenzstrasse, 10 562 70435 Stuttgart 563 Germany 565 Phone: +4971182143125 566 Email: Dieter.Beller@nokia.com