Subject: [CCAMP] Comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-framework-05

From: Giovanni Martinelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:43:47 +0100

Hi Greg/Young/Authors,

regarding the rwa framework I appreciate last updates, they goes in the 
right direction. I still have few comment on the draft:

1) Sec. 3.5.1 Regenerators
According to ITU inputs (Q6 mtg last october) the regeneration 
classification was:
1R: amplifier
2R: does not exist
3R: the regenerator (indeed).

I can understand the framework list all the three types (for sake of 
completess) but at the end we can consider only 3R as regeneration. This 
should also simplify the related encoding: we need only to know if regen 
is available and not the specific type (1, 2 or 3).

2) Sec. 4.1.1
PCE is one of the architectural options but reading the first bullet 
looks like there is a need of a *stateful* PCE to support RWA.
If that the case probably worth a reference to RFC4655 section 6.8.

3) Sec. 4.1.3
The statement "this approach may generate higher blocking probability.." 
is there any reference that demonstrate this?

4) Section 4.3
Is not really clear to me the scope of this section, why do we need to 
state anything about temporal characteristics?
Another comment that I did some time ago was about defining 
dynamic/pseudo-static/static with no reference: the draft just mention 
short or moderately-long and long duration.

5) Sec. 5.5.4
I understand you need to clarify some typical optical terminology like: 
transparent / translucent etc. but how about having all terminology 
grouped in section 3?
And basically this WSON framework support either transparent (in 
different flavors) and translucent.

Cheers
G