idnits 2.17.1
draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-07.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 25, 2018) is 2126 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 452, but no explicit reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G698.2' is defined on line 463, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G709' is defined on line 469, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G872' is defined on line 474, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'ITU.G874.1' is defined on line 479, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4054' is defined on line 485, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 507, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC3410' is defined on line 511, but no explicit
reference was found in the text
== Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 517, 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== Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of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-11
** 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: December 27, 2018 G. Galimberti, Ed.
6 Cisco
7 R. Kunze
8 Deutsche Telekom
9 D. Beller
10 Nokia
11 June 25, 2018
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-07
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 https://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 December 27, 2018.
48 Copyright Notice
50 Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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". 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-dharini-
94 ccamp-dwdm-if-yang".
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 (e.g. OTN cross connect) and the optical line system
169 to which it is attached. In particular, this document defines
170 additional Data Link sub-objects to be carried in the LinkSummary
171 message defined in [RFC4204] and [RFC6205]. The OXC and OLS systems
172 may be managed by different Network management systems and hence may
173 not know the capability and status of their peer. These messages and
174 their usage are defined in 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" and "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang" for more details about
189 these parameters and the [RFC6205] for the wavelength definition.
191 The general parameters are
192 1. Central Frequency - (Tera Hz) 4 bytes (see RFC6205 sec.3.2)
193 2. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
194 3. Single-channel Application Identifier in use
195 4. Application Identifier Type in use
196 5. Application Identifier in use
198 Figure 3: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
199 TBA) is as follows:
201 0 1 2 3
202 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
203 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
204 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
205 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
206 | Central Frequency |
207 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
208 | Number of Application | |
209 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
211 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
212 | Application | in use | |
213 | Identifier | | |
214 | Number in use | | |
215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
216 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
218 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
220 | Single-channel Application Identifier in use |
221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
222 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
224 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
226 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
228 0 1 2 3
229 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
230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
231 | Single-channel Application Code |
232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
233 | Single-channel Application Code |
234 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
235 | Single-channel Application Code |
236 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
238 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
240 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
241 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
242 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
243 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
244 vendor whose implementation generated the Application
245 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
246 unspecified.
248 0 1 2 3
249 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
250 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
251 | OUI |
252 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
253 | OUI cont. | Vendor value |
254 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
255 | Vendor Value |
256 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
258 Figure 3: OCh_General
260 6. ApplicationIdentifier - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
262 This message is to exchange the application identifiers supported as
263 described in [G698.2]. There can be more than one Application
264 Identifier supported by the transmitter/receiver in the OXC. The
265 number of application identifiers supported is exchanged in the
266 "OCh_General" message. (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1] and G.874.1
267 )
268 The parameters are
269 1. Number of Application Identifiers (A.I.) Supported
271 2. Single-channel application identifier Number
272 uniquely identifiers this entry - 8 bits
274 3. Application Indentifier Type (A.I.) (STANDARD/PROPRIETARY)
276 4. Single-channel application identifier -- 96 bits
277 (from [G698.1]/[G698.2]/[G959.1]
279 - this parameter can have
280 multiple instances as the transceiver can support multiple
281 application identifiers.
283 Figure 4: The format of the this sub-object (Type = TBA, Length =
284 TBA) is as follows:
286 0 1 2 3
287 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
288 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
289 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
290 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
291 | Number of Application | |
292 | Identifiers Supported | (Reserved) |
293 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
294 | Single-channel| A.I. Type | A.I. length |
295 | Application | | |
296 | Identifier | | |
297 | Number | | |
298 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
299 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
300 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
301 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
302 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
303 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
304 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
305 // .... //
306 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
307 | Single-channel| | A.I. length |
308 | Application | A.I. Type | |
309 | Identifier | | |
310 | Number | | |
311 | | | |
312 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
313 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
314 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
315 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
316 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
317 | Single-channel Application Identifier |
318 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
320 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD, PROPRIETARY
322 A.I. Type in use: STANDARD
323 Refer to G.698.2 recommendation : B-DScW-ytz(v)
325 0 1 2 3
326 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
327 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
328 | Single-channel Application Code |
329 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
330 | Single-channel Application Code |
331 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
332 | Single-channel Application Code |
333 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
335 A.I. Type in use: PROPRIETARY
337 Note: if the A.I. type = PROPRIETARY, the first 6 Octets of the
338 Application Identifier in use are six characters of the
339 PrintableString must contain the Hexadecimal representation of
340 an OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) assigned to the
341 vendor whose implementation generated the Application
342 Identifier; the remaining octets of the PrintableString are
343 unspecified.
345 0 1 2 3
346 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
347 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
348 | OUI |
349 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
350 | OUI cont. | Vendor value |
351 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
352 | Vendor Value |
353 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
355 Figure 4: OCh_ApplicationIdentifier
357 7. OCh_Ss - OCh transmit parameters
359 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Source(Ss reference points).
360 Please refer to "draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-yang" for more details
361 about these parameters.
363 1. Output power
365 Figure 5: The format of the OCh sub-object (Type = TBA, Length = TBA)
366 is as follows:
368 0 1 2 3
369 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
370 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
371 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
372 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
373 | Output Power |
374 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
376 Figure 5: OCh_Ss transmit parameters
378 8. OCh_Rs - receive parameters
380 These are the G.698.2 parameters at the Sink (Rs reference points).
382 1. Current Input Power - (0.1dbm) 4bytes
384 Figure 6: The format of the OCh receive sub-object (Type = TBA,
385 Length = TBA) is as follows:
387 The format of the OCh receive/OLS Sink sub-object (Type = TBA,
388 Length = TBA) is as follows:
390 0 1 2 3
391 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
392 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
393 | Type | Length | (Reserved) |
394 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
395 | Current Input Power |
396 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
398 Figure 6: OCh_Rs receive parameters
400 9. Security Considerations
402 LMP message security uses IPsec, as described in [RFC4204]. This
403 document only defines new LMP objects that are carried in existing
404 LMP messages, similar to the LMP objects in [RFC:4209]. This
405 document does not introduce new security considerations.
407 10. IANA Considerations
409 LMP defines the following name spaces and
410 the ways in which IANA can make assignments to these namespaces:
412 - LMP Message Type
413 - LMP Object Class
414 - LMP Object Class type (C-Type) unique within the Object Class
415 - LMP Sub-object Class type (Type) unique within the Object Class
416 This memo introduces the following new assignments:
418 LMP Sub-Object Class names:
420 under DATA_LINK Class name (as defined in )
421 - OCh_General (sub-object Type = TBA)
422 - OCh_ApplicationIdentifier (sub-object Type = TBA)
423 - OCh_Ss (sub-object Type = TBA)
424 - OCh_Rs (sub-object Type = TBA)
426 11. Contributors
428 Arnold Mattheus
429 Deutsche Telekom
430 Darmstadt
431 Germany
432 email a.mattheus@telekom.de
434 John E. Drake
435 Juniper
436 1194 N Mathilda Avenue
437 HW-US,Pennsylvania
438 USA
439 jdrake@juniper.net
441 Zafar Ali
442 Cisco
443 3000 Innovation Drive
444 KANATA
445 ONTARIO K2K 3E8
446 zali@cisco.com
448 12. References
450 12.1. Normative References
452 [I-D.ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk]
453 Kunze, R., Grammel, G., Beller, D., Galimberti, G., and J.
454 Meuric, "A framework for Management and Control of DWDM
455 optical interface parameters", draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-
456 mng-ctrl-fwk-11 (work in progress), June 2018.
458 [ITU.G694.1]
459 International Telecommunications Union, ""Spectral grids
460 for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid"",
461 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, February 2012.
463 [ITU.G698.2]
464 International Telecommunications Union, "Amplified
465 multichannel dense wavelength division multiplexing
466 applications with single channel optical interfaces",
467 ITU-T Recommendation G.698.2, November 2009.
469 [ITU.G709]
470 International Telecommunications Union, "Interface for the
471 Optical Transport Network (OTN)", ITU-T Recommendation
472 G.709, February 2012.
474 [ITU.G872]
475 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of
476 optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872,
477 October 2012.
479 [ITU.G874.1]
480 International Telecommunications Union, "Optical transport
481 network (OTN): Protocol-neutral management information
482 model for the network element view", ITU-T Recommendation
483 G.874.1, October 2012.
485 [RFC4054] Strand, J., Ed. and A. Chiu, Ed., "Impairments and Other
486 Constraints on Optical Layer Routing", RFC 4054,
487 DOI 10.17487/RFC4054, May 2005,
488 .
490 [RFC4204] Lang, J., Ed., "Link Management Protocol (LMP)", RFC 4204,
491 DOI 10.17487/RFC4204, October 2005,
492 .
494 [RFC4209] Fredette, A., Ed. and J. Lang, Ed., "Link Management
495 Protocol (LMP) for Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing
496 (DWDM) Optical Line Systems", RFC 4209,
497 DOI 10.17487/RFC4209, October 2005,
498 .
500 [RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed. and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for
501 Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers",
502 RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011,
503 .
505 12.2. Informative References
507 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
508 DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
509 .
511 [RFC3410] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart,
512 "Introduction and Applicability Statements for Internet-
513 Standard Management Framework", RFC 3410,
514 DOI 10.17487/RFC3410, December 2002,
515 .
517 [RFC4181] Heard, C., Ed., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
518 MIB Documents", BCP 111, RFC 4181, DOI 10.17487/RFC4181,
519 September 2005, .
521 Authors' Addresses
523 Dharini Hiremagalur (editor)
524 Juniper
525 1194 N Mathilda Avenue
526 Sunnyvale - 94089 California
527 USA
529 Phone: +1408
530 Email: dharinih@juniper.net
532 Gert Grammel (editor)
533 Juniper
534 Oskar-Schlemmer Str. 15
535 80807 Muenchen
536 Germany
538 Phone: +49 1725186386
539 Email: ggrammel@juniper.net
541 Gabriele Galimberti (editor)
542 Cisco
543 Via S. Maria Molgora, 48 c
544 20871 - Vimercate
545 Italy
547 Phone: +390392091462
548 Email: ggalimbe@cisco.com
550 Ruediger Kunze
551 Deutsche Telekom
552 Dddd, xx
553 Berlin
554 Germany
556 Phone: +49xxxxxxxxxx
557 Email: RKunze@telekom.de
558 Dieter Beller
559 Nokia
560 Lorenzstrasse, 10
561 70435 Stuttgart
562 Germany
564 Phone: +4971182143125
565 Email: Dieter.Beller@nokia.com