idnits 2.17.1 draft-dharinigert-ccamp-dwdm-if-lmp-08.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 (October 22, 2018) is 2003 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in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4181' is defined on line 517, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-13) exists of draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-mng-ctrl-fwk-11 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: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: April 25, 2019 G. Galimberti, Ed. 6 Cisco 7 R. Kunze, Ed. 8 Deutsche Telekom 9 D. Beller 10 Nokia 11 October 22, 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-08 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 April 25, 2019. 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, June 2016. 474 [ITU.G872] 475 International Telecommunications Union, "Architecture of 476 optical transport networks", ITU-T Recommendation G.872, 477 January 2017. 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, November 2016. 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 (editor) 551 Deutsche Telekom 552 Winterfeldtstr. 21-27 553 10781 Berlin 554 Germany 556 Phone: +491702275321 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